
Pentagon admits it has deployed military spy drones over the U.S - jonbaer
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/09/pentagon-admits-has-deployed-military-spy-drones-over-us/81474702/
======
cheath
I'm pretty sensitive to these things. That said, if you look at the partial
list provided (granted this was potentially cherry picked), we're looking
primarily at disaster awareness stuff. Flooding, wild fires, and search &
rescue. Not spying.

Military resources, such as The National Guard, get called up for disaster
relief all of the time. I think I'd rather drones helping people in these
scenarios than what they're primarily used for.

~~~
Vexs
I agree. Military tech is the best tech, if it can spot a terrorist in a bush
than it can, and should be used to find victims of natural disasters.

Also, I don't think UAVs are the best option for mass surveillance. I mean,
there's cameras on every corner, phones in every pocket, etc. There's enough
cameras to spy on people, you don't need to stick a very expensive drone that
will last only a couple hours/days and not be able to peek in houses as well
as someone's webcam.

I'm not sure how I feel about this bit though.

> an unnamed mayor asked the Marine Corps to use a drone to find potholes in
> the mayor's city

I mean. Is it helpful? Yes. Is it a really good way to find potentially
dangerous potholes? Probably. It just seems... excessive.

~~~
mseebach
> > an unnamed mayor asked the Marine Corps to use a drone to find potholes in
> the mayor's city

Maybe he's trying to figure out if he can use a DHS grant to buy "OMG
TERRORISM" drones, that just happens to look for potholes whenever it has a
few minutes off between terror attacks?

EDIT: On second thought, is finding the holes _really_ the bottleneck in The
War on Potholes? And if so, isn't this better fixed with an answering machine,
and/or a $5000 Rails app?

~~~
rtkwe
The app is cheap getting people to use it is expensive.

~~~
mseebach
Is it really hard to get people to complain about potholes, if complaining is
actually going to get them filled in? And if you're not going to fill them in,
then why care where they are?

~~~
Ntrails
It's easy to get people to complain. The drone is probably able to produce far
better data assuming the main problem is pothole triage (ie you're only going
to fix ~30%, of which around half will be patched quickly and the other half
properly re-tarmacked. Which ones and in which order?)

------
spdustin
It's not just drones. Law Enforcement often flies surveillance flights,
circling over locations of interest. These planes often have thermal/visual
imaging video cameras and, according to some stories, may also be carrying
other tracking or signal interception hardware (think Stingray). HN user
jjwiseman [0] scooped most of the press about this.

You can locate such "interesting" flights right now, using your browser. Just
open up ADSB Exchange Virtual Radar [1], which doesn't filter out flights with
certain squawk codes like other online virtual radar sites do. If you do,
select "Menu" from the map (with the gear icon), then "Options". Select the
"Filter" tab, select to "Enable filters", select "Interesting" from the
dropdown listbox, and select "Add Filter". Now you can zoom out over the
country, and see all the "interesting" flights using the table on the left.
Note any flights with the "LE" or "FBI" or "DHS" user tag.

Right now, as I write this, an FBI-owned aircraft is circling over the
Norwood/Bronx area of NYC [2], tail number N912EX, registered to OBR Leasing
(one of the "shells" that the US Gov't uses for registering its law
enforcement aircraft), as mentioned in an AP story last summer [3]

[0]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jjwiseman](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jjwiseman)

[1]: [http://www.adsbexchange.com](http://www.adsbexchange.com), select
"Currently Tracking [number] Aircraft on upper-right"

[2]: [http://i.imgur.com/EUYqx98.png](http://i.imgur.com/EUYqx98.png)

[3]:
[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4b3f220e33b64123a3909c60845da...](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4b3f220e33b64123a3909c60845da045/fbi-
behind-mysterious-surveillance-aircraft-over-us-cities)

Edit: Another one, flying around NW Los Angeles, right now:
[http://i.imgur.com/PwRpqRe.png](http://i.imgur.com/PwRpqRe.png)

Edit2: Any aircraft squawking transponder beacon codes between 4401-4433 are
engaged in law enforcement operations. More on the various squawk codes
reserved by US Gov't operations can be found here (pdf link):
[http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FINAL_Order_7...](http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FINAL_Order_7110_66E_NBCAP.pdf)

~~~
LordKano
Simply amazing.

I'm sure that there's a good reason for it but the Turkish military has a
plane over Columbus, Ohio. I would have never expected to see that.

~~~
anonbanker
Forgive the tin-foil on this hat, but how does this not fit all the
qualifications for a foreign invasion?

~~~
LordKano
We do joint military operations and training with allied countries all of the
time.

It's not an invasion if we invited them and they're not attacking.

------
protomyth
Why, yes, they used one to find a cattle rustler in ND
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/01/27/predator-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/01/27/predator-
drone-sends-north-dakota-man-to-jail/#6f1f45735853)

I still believe this should have illegal as they had no warrant and it
violates the Posse Comitatus Act.

~~~
tzs
Looking at several stories on this, it seems that the drone was used to aid in
executing a lawful arrest, not to gather evidence.

The exact timeline is unclear, but many of the stories indicate that the drone
was brought in after the arrest turned into an armed standoff, with the drone
being used to figure out where the armed people were so that the arrests could
be made safely.

Under those circumstances, I don't see how using the drone would require a
warrant.

~~~
soylentcola
That's an important distinction IMO because we've already got police
helicopters and such in many cities and they're clearly useful when you
quickly need to get an aerial view of an accident or someone running after
committing a crime. There is still potential from abuse but whether the craft
is manned or not would likely not change that.

At the same time, I guess on a personal, gut reaction level, it seems a bit
more threatening or overreaching to think about any aircraft, manned or not,
constantly flying around just recording everything for reference under the
argument that it could help identify other crimes or locate individuals.

It may be illogical to be OK with a police chopper but not other surveillance
craft but I think the potential for abuse and overreach skyrockets when you
have the ability to find and track individuals at any time or create a record
of their actions and travels for later analysis. I guess my emotional reaction
stems from law enforcement responding to reports of crime versus just
recording everything _in case_ there's a crime. In the latter case, it
wouldn't be hard to find something to nail someone on if you had a long enough
record of their lives and activities and that's what unsettles me.

~~~
merpnderp
Police helicopters aren't easily configured to launch Hellfire anti-tank
missiles.

~~~
Goronmon
So, the problem isn't the use of drones, it's how readily the drones can be
equipped with weapons?

~~~
merpnderp
You think people would be cool with the military operating Apache gunships for
police enforcement as long as the missiles and rockets were removed?

~~~
Goronmon
Personally, I think its one of things that sounds scarier than it is. I mean,
sure, I would be nervous if there was evidence that armed helicopters/drones
are flying over the US in the situations we are talking about here. But as
long as they are unarmed, I'm not too worried.

Even if the government used a specific fleet of non-combat related drones,
that wouldn't stop them from switching over to combat-ready drones tomorrow if
they so wished it.

------
beau26
It's shameful that

(a) it took a freedom of information request to make this information public.

(b) the Pentagon did it's own internal report and found that there was no
wrongdoing.

(c) that nobody in the government is going to hold these clowns responsible or
create any sort of legitimate process for determining whether these flights
were legal or not.

~~~
jngreenlee
Look I don't love these ether, but:

"A senior policy analyst for the ACLU, Jay Stanley, said it is good news no
legal violations were found"

"the Pentagon established interim guidance in 2006 governing when and whether
the unmanned aircraft could be used domestically. The interim policy allowed
spy drones to be used for homeland defense purposes in the U.S. and to assist
civil authorities."

~~~
newman314
That's something that really sets me off; the hiding behind the umbrella of
"well, that's legal"

Just because something is legal or some twisted definition thereof (eg
waterboarding is not torture) does not mean that it's right. And for people of
power to hide behind the guise of legality is so often not sufficiently called
out and deterred.

~~~
unchocked
Sure, but it's hard to make the case that using aerial surveillance to assist
in lawful arrest operations is "not right". Weather the surveillance is manned
or unmanned isn't of ethical concern. To which branch of government it belongs
may be of ethical concern, but I think such concern is better described as
"legalistic".

~~~
newman314
So at a micro level, this may seem like a good idea. I believe we need
considering such activities in a larger context.

For example, there have been multiple laws passed/proposed in various
countries because "think of the children" or "terrorism". The Patriot Act was
written before 9/11 and passed in a hurry. To the point, where the original
architect of the act now regrets his actions [1]. Or the fact that the act is
now overwhelming used for prosecuting drug activities instead of its original
intended purpose [2].

> "Weather the surveillance is manned or unmanned isn't of ethical concern"

I would disagree with this statement. It's the difference between a police
stakeout and them planting a webcam [3].

I repeatedly stress at work to people involved with big data projects that
want to advance the notion of a data lake. "Just because we can does not mean
that we should". I'm not convinced that the legal route is sufficient to check
such activity and is why I'm a proponent of systems that prevent bad actors
from intercepting (zero knowledge?) instead of "we promise not to look"
solutions.

I'll end with:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was
not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was
not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

[1] [http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/patriot-act-author-
meets-w...](http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/patriot-act-author-meets-with-
eu-parliam)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2014/10/29/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-controversial-patriot-act-power-now-
overwhelmingly-used-in-drug-investigations/)

[3] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-
na...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-nailed-
webcam-to-utility-pole-for-6-weeks-to-spy-on-house/)

~~~
unchocked
The article talks about less than 20 missions over a 9 year period. This is
hardly mass surveillance and it's disingenuous to suggest it is simply because
the platform was unmanned. I'll add that it's detrimental to the quality of
discussion we enjoy here on HN to conclude such hyperbole with a holocaust
reference.

I think all of us on HN are familiar with the qualitative effects of "big
data" both in general and as it pertains to surveillance. I hope we're all
sophisticated enough to realize that the issues at hand revolve around scale,
probable cause, and data retention/mining, rather than the canard of whether
the platform involved was manned or unmanned.

~~~
newman314
My original comment did not mention anything about manned vs. unmanned. I was
merely responding to your claim that it does not make a difference which I do
not agree with.

As to your statement that it's <20 over 9 years, at the risk of sounding a
little tin-foilish, but that's what is publicly being admitted to.

Such activities always start small.
[https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/U...](https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/)

------
jallmann
> an unnamed mayor asked the Marine Corps to use a drone to find potholes in
> the mayor's city

Let's play a guessing game! San Diego? We've got Miramar and Camp Pendleton
here, along with crumbling infrastructure and terrible potholes. Although the
city certainly doesn't need help finding potholes around here...

Using drones for this kind of thing actually makes a lot of sense, although
not a $20 million militarized Predator.

~~~
josho
Or crowd source it by having commuters register potholes.. That also gives you
a sense of priority based on number of calls for a given area.

Militarizing cities for potholes is just plain wrong. That's something you'd
expect to hear from a Stalinist regime, not a democratic nation.

~~~
radiorental
There's an app for that

[http://www.streetbump.org/about](http://www.streetbump.org/about)

~~~
keehun
That seems like a good idea but a slight overkill. Why not allow the residents
to submit specific location info/pictures of potholes? I wouldn't want to send
the city of Boston every car trip I take--especially since I usually do my
best to drive around potholes and then it wouldn't be registered in the app.

~~~
oplav
I think in many US cities, you can call 311 for city services, which include
reporting potholes.

~~~
slavik81
In Calgary there's a 311 app that let's you take a GPS-tagged photo, attach a
note, and open a ticket with the city.

------
cgriswald
> "Sometimes, new technology changes so rapidly that existing law no longer
> fit what people think are appropriate," Stanley said.

Sometimes, maybe. I'd argue rarely. I don't see much difference between an
unmanned drone and an unmanned satellite or a manned helicopter in terms of
applicable law.

Believing that a new law is needed because computers/drones/robots/AI/whatever
now exist can lead to bad laws, or laws that are out-of-balance in terms of
punishment. (i.e., commit a crime - 5 years. commit the same crime WITH A
COMPUTER - 10 years)

> "It's important to remember that the American people do find this to be a
> very, very sensitive topic."

I think the media finds this to be an eyeball-grabbing topic, but AFAICT, the
American people do not care much about it.

~~~
merpnderp
Using the military against US citizens is such a horrendous thought, that it's
explicitly outlawed. And those drones are easily armed, so if you want a
comparison, this isn't like a manned helicopter. It's like a manned Apache
helicopter, that just happens to not have a complement of Hellfire and 70mm
rockets, patrolling the US skies. People would freak out if they looked up and
saw that doing law enforcement duties.

~~~
freeone3000
You mean like the
[https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/7.jpg](https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/7.jpg)
M113s used by sheriffs?

~~~
pc86
There is a difference between a military operation on US soil and civilian law
enforcement using military hardware.

~~~
ZenoArrow
There's a difference in who pulls the trigger. Anything else?

~~~
walshemj
A lot more training and stricter rules of engagement - personally id prefer
seal team 6 for dealing with a mass shooting incident ala Paris rather than
which ever Podunk police swat team happens to be local.

------
mmaunder
It will take a few years, but drone use will trickle down from the military
into federal and local enforcement branches.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police)

I'm curious about the flight plan approval and filing process they go through
with the FAA.

Also wondering if the flights show up on the 5 minute delayed ASDI API:

[http://www.fly.faa.gov/ASDI/asdi.html](http://www.fly.faa.gov/ASDI/asdi.html)

And if the drones carry ADS-B transceivers and if they show up on other
transceivers during flight. (Which would make them visible/trackable to anyone
ground or air based that is listening)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance_%E2%80%93_broadcast)

~~~
gozur88
The FBI and DEA (at least) already use drones.

Personally, from a law enforcement perspective I don't see the big difference
between drones and manned aircraft. What really matters is what kind of
sensors are on the aircraft and what they do with the data.

~~~
__jal
I see a difference. Not today, because military drones (as far as I know) are
still human-piloted. But that won't last. And then...

It is the same difference as exists between automatic license plate readers
and people standing on a corner with a pad and paper. I realize that a certain
mindset (active in legal circles, but not exclusively so) that doesn't see
that capabilities end up swallowing the original tradeoffs in some contexts.

Put a different way, you're right. There's no capability difference. Lower
cost and automation will simply allow much, much more of the same. Like how
automatic weapons offer no capability difference over a single shot rifle -
they just do the same thing faster. Hm...

~~~
gozur88
Maybe eventually. Right now it's still cheaper to put a guy up there in a
Cessna.

------
jngreenlee
There's a lot of talk about the Posse Comitatus Act[0]. The real distinction
is in "intent of the mission". A mission that is:

A)Conducted by United States Army or the United States Air Force, and

B)Conducted to enforce domestic policies within the United States

Would be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. However, there is
disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an
advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as
opposed to domestic law enforcement.[1]

[0][http://legisworks.org/sal/20/stats/STATUTE-20-Pg152.pdf](http://legisworks.org/sal/20/stats/STATUTE-20-Pg152.pdf)

[1][https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DOCLIBS/MILITARYLAWREVIEW.NSF/2...](https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DOCLIBS/MILITARYLAWREVIEW.NSF/20a66345129fe3d885256e5b00571830/47c2b664085060fc85256e5b00576e6e/$FILE/Volume175Felicetti.pdf)

------
jameslk
It seems hypocritical to assume this is any worse than having these drones
flying over other countries, sometimes without their consent.

~~~
ethanbond
"Worse" is subjective.

"Legal" is quite a bit less so – although not totally objective even then.

~~~
jameslk
I guess what I was trying to say is that if it's considered illegal to fly
these drones over the US because it violates constitutional rights, consider
why that would be and then compare that with the reasoning for allowing it to
happen to other citizens of other nations. What exactly is the difference
other than the laws?

If the goal of these drones is to spy on terrorists, then isn't it possible
that terrorists exist in the US too? If we shouldn't have drones spying on US
citizens because it violates our privacy, then shouldn't other citizens of
other nations have privacy too?

Maybe it's not so bad (or illegal?) if these drones fly over some middle
eastern nation, but what if we started flying them over some western nation
like the UK, or Germany (potentially without their consent). Is it still okay
then?

~~~
jacquesm
The term you are looking for is 'airspace violation'. Violating another
countries airspace like that is a dangerous game, in some cases leading to
planes being shot down. Now with drones the pilots life are not at risk so
countries will have a lower barrier to try this but eventually the country
that you this on might retaliate. Wars have started over less in history.

------
cbanek
A couple of weeks ago, I was taking in some scenery around Creech AFB, North
of Las Vegas. While there, I saw a Predator (although it might have been a
MQ-9 Reaper) being launched from the airstrip.

It looked like a giant model aircraft getting launched when the wind hit it.
Pretty cool at the time, although after reading this, I hope it was just a
training mission over some non-existent Nevada AFB...

~~~
laxatives
I'm definitely no expert, but I'm almost certain I saw low flying drones
around Dulles Airport in VA (about an hour from DC) near where I lived in
2005-2009.

------
EasyTiger_
Next come drone attacks on US citizens? And who is going to stop them, now
that they can do anything they want in the name of terrorism.

~~~
unchocked
While I share your apparent concern for civil liberties, the assumption that
we're likely to see armed drone strikes on US soil is hyperbolic and rooted in
misapprehension of why the state uses drone strikes abroad.

Drone strikes are used as a replacement for manned air strikes, which in turn
are used when a target is too isolated to engage with ground forces.

The reason that we're not going to see drone strikes on US soil is the same
reason we don't see air strikes on US soil: you can deploy SWAT teams on US
soil.

~~~
arca_vorago
The actual danger from militarized drones actually comes not from "strikes",
in the sense that the military uses them (mostly from large predator style
UAVs), but in the militarization of police as it relates to using drones. In
this case I am mostly seeing gas powered helo-uav's with armaments attached,
and the laws are quickly being passed to dot the i's and cross the t's for LE.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2015/08/27/435301160/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2015/08/27/435301160/north-dakota-legalizes-armed-police-drones)

So you are correct in that we won't see hellfire missles deployed on US
ground, but rather small arms on wings... which is almost scarier to me simply
because a hellfire would raise eyebrows, but a news snippet of using a armed
drone to engage a $villan is sure to become normalized far too quickly.

~~~
ska

      "militarization of police "
    

You can pretty much stop there. This is the root cause of a huge number of
problems.

------
tokenadult
From the article:

"The Pentagon has publicly posted at least a partial list of the drone
missions that have flown in non-military airspace over the United States and
explains the use of the aircraft. The site lists nine missions flown between
2011 and 2016, largely to assist with search and rescue, floods, fires or
National Guard exercises.

"A senior policy analyst for the ACLU, Jay Stanley, said it is good news no
legal violations were found, yet the technology is so advanced that it's
possible laws may require revision."

This sounds a lot less dramatic than the article headline, but it's good that
this is being reported and discussed publicly.

------
nerdcity
>any use of military drones for civil authorities had to be approved by the
Secretary of Defense

Gee, what oversight. I'm sure they'll be denying approvals left and right.

------
Zhenya
I wonder who mayor genius is:

    
    
       One case in which an unnamed mayor asked the Marine Corps to use a drone to find potholes in the mayor's city.

~~~
hyperliner
You did not include the best part: to find _potholes in the mayor 's city_

~~~
BinaryIdiot
Looks like he did include that; did you scroll horizontally? HN does that to
some types of text and I can't remember why but it's quite annoying.

~~~
gohrt

        Input text indented 4-spaces is "PRE" formatted and HN won't line-wrap it.

------
shmerl
Reminds me this:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-a...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-
artists-satirizes-law-enforcement-drone-program-gets-book-thrown-him-
nypd.shtml)

------
deevus
Edward Snowden talks about this in Citizenfour.

=======================================

I also learned at NSA, we could watch drone videos from our desktops. As I saw
that, that really hardened me to action. \- In real time? \- In real time.
Yeah, you... it'll stream a lower quality of the video to your desktop.
Typically you'd be watching surveillance drones as opposed to actually like
you know murder drones where they're going out there and bomb somebody. But
you'll have a drone that's just following somebody's house for hours and
hours. And you won't know who it is, because you don't have the context for
that. But it's just a page, where it's lists and lists of drone feeds in all
these different countries, under all these different code names, and you can
just click on which one you want to see.

=======================================

He doesn't say explicitly that this includes the U.S., but I made that
assumption and here it is: proven.

~~~
kobayashi
The article says absolutely nothing to support your belief. For your assertion
to be credible, there would have had to been many more than <20 flights in ten
years.

------
bolivier
All I can think is "duh." Why wouldn't the US deploy military drones over her
own soil? Who's going to stop them?

I doubt any level of wrongdoing within the US Government could shock me
anymore.

~~~
Nadya
_> I doubt any level of wrongdoing within the US Government could shock me
anymore._

Worse is that less and less of the population sees any of the things they do
as wrongdoing. After all, they're not doing it for power grabs or control -
they're doing it to keep us safe and stop the terrorists and catch the
paedophiles!

Mass surveillance is one of the first signs of a totalitarian state. History
is easier to read about than to learn from. _" Not this time."_ or _" That
wouldn't happen in {currentYear}"_ are the defenses.

I'm sure those were the same defense several centuries ago. But this time will
be different!

I'm really scared of what the world will look like in another 2-3 decades.

------
cm2187
What I don't understand is that the Pentagon isn't the CIA, it is not
prohibited to operate in the US, is it? I mean you have ICBM deployed in the
US. What not drones?

------
m23khan
Pakistan says Hi!

------
cagey_vet
drones? how about surveillance planes every day i see over gaithersburg seen
via SDR

------
tempodox
The F.B.I, the N.S.A, the Pentagon, ...

We're being governed by criminals.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
“usatoday.com” would like to use your current location.

------
madaxe_again
Legal != right.

------
l3m0ndr0p
Those people that are responsible for this activity should be brought before a
court and tried for treason.

~~~
sparky_z
According to the article (which is all I have to go on) the ACLU reviewed each
incident and said they were all legal. Lobby to change the law if you like,
but you can't put someone on trial for taking legal actions you find
distasteful.

~~~
zzz157
Awesome, another post downplaying the severity of the issue. Why don't YOU
lobby to change the law? Right, because I guess you're fine with the
surveillance state.

------
pinaceae
Now you know how it feels.

/signed by the rest of the world.

~~~
gohrt
The rest of the world gets incoming missiles from the drones.

~~~
Zigurd
Next time

