
LAPD adds drones to arsenal, says they'll be used sparingly  - radley
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-adds-drones-to-arsenal-20140530-story.html
======
alkonaut
Police use helicopters for all sorts of things. What is problematic isn't the
monitoring from above, it's that it is so cheap. A helicopter with crew costs
over $1000 per hour, so we know you know we aren't being monitored
indiscriminately from above. Its simply to expensive. With drones, the cost of
air surveillance drops to a whole other level. A level that almost allows for
mass surveillance.

The same argument can be made about drone warfare: it's not the
shooting/bombing from above that is disturbing, it's that it can be performed
at almost zero risk.

The same argument we saw in communications surveillance. When listening to a
phone call was expensive it was one thing, when listening to communications
became free we know what happened.

Cost, however, shouldn't be what limits surveillance, regulation should. If
police can switch from a helicopter to a drone for sime mission, and save 90%,
that should be a good thing.

~~~
icambron
> Cost, however, shouldn't be what limits surveillance, regulation should. If
> police can switch from a helicopter to a drone for some mission, and save
> 90%, that should be a good thing.

This on my top ten list of things I want to shout from the mountaintop. If you
read the legal decisions about police surveillance, they're all about
analogizing to how police can follow people around, but that's resource
intensive and thus limited, and does this piece of tech break that balance?
Which is a terrifically insane way of thinking about it. It both makes the
rules of what law enforcement is allowed to do shifty and unprincipled, it
also makes legitimate deployments of law enforcement pointlessly difficult.
Instead, we need strong, _principled_ (and thus not technology-specific) rules
regarding privacy, and then we can decide whether _particular uses_ of, say,
drones fall within those boundaries. Starting with the technology doesn't make
any sense.

I've made this point a few times on HN, but the same goes for military drones.
"The problem with them is they make killing people cheaper" is a sign of a
totally broken morality. Instead, start by deciding whether killing that
person (and the collateral damage it will cause) is OK, and then use the most
efficient means to do it. Whether there's a pilot in the aircraft can not
plausibly be a proxy for whether you should blow someone up or not. (FWIW, I'm
very close to categorically against killing people.)

~~~
opendais
The problem with this is we've got a bunch of 50+ year olds who don't really
understand that they are basically handing over the ability to observe every
aspect of our lives, in a cost effective manner by state and federal
standards, even if we are not suspects.

And guess what? Even if you have strong regulations, they'll close ranks and
cover up for each other.

That factor will lead to cameras mounted the officers body, but does anyone
here really believe those tapes wouldn't get 'erased' and/or end up being
protected by 'national security' with no real fact checking by the courts at
this juncture?

I think the next 20-30 years are going to be a real problem until people who
understand exactly how much power we are handing over get into power and make
it stop.

Until there is a major generational change to the Supreme Court, Congress, and
the Presidency...I don't see 'more regulation' actually doing us any good
because it'll get ignored when its convenient. I think everyone under 35 needs
to band together and say we won't sell out. :/

~~~
hyperbovine
I assume this is exactly what said 50+ year olds were thinking about their
elders circa 1970. "Generational change" is not the panacea it appears to be
while in your 20s.

~~~
opendais
There are many things that were worse in the 70s [bigotry; racism; martial
rape wasn't illegal in all states until something like 1993; etc].

The surveillance aspect was only 'less bad' because it wasn't financially
feasible due to the tech at the time. So yes, I'd say the 'big issues' of the
70s were partially fixed by generational change.

The generational change from that generation did have effects, it didn't solve
everything. It never does.

However, if you have a better plan that will have actual results, feel free to
publicize and encourage people to follow it. :)

~~~
lovemenot
This time around, the issues are more subtle. Effective solutions will be
privacy enhancing technologies adopted by individuals in a free market, rather
than politics and movements, which are too blunt of an instrument. I believe,
the ANC welcomed white activists and we should be careful not to alienate
like-thinking people of any sort. On the false-positive side, youth can
sometimes be callow and too easily persuaded to jump on the wrong
bandwagon.(lovemenot aged 49.5)

~~~
opendais
That could be. I'm just not convinced any 'free market solution' will survive
government 'intervention'.

------
LoganCale
They'll be used sparingly until people are used to them and then they'll start
using them more.

~~~
lotu
Well yes, are you implying there is something inherently wrong with drones?

~~~
LoganCale
In the hands of police, absolutely. I do not want police to have access to
rapid, easy surveillance at that level.

~~~
bayesianhorse
They have... it's called a patrol car. And about as obvious as these drones.

------
higherpurpose
"Only for serious crimes", just like the use of SWAT teams. In other words for
things like mass murder...drug possession...not paying your mortgage on time.

------
Balgair
I live in LA. This is more complicated than you think. Example: I take the
bus, because, screw traffic. It's nicer and easier. We are at Santa Monica and
Westwood and a cop car pulls up right next to me. I'm higher up, and this
light takes a long time, so I get a good long chance to view the cop car over.

I was surprised. The damn thing was rusted to all hell. There was a thermal
scanner on the top, but good lord if it actually worked. Most of the BNC
cables (yes, really, like in freshman lab) were frayed up. The top was totally
rust, and a bit of liner was coming through. Remember, in SoCal, we get rain
maybe 5 times a year. This car was OLD.

The thing about LA cops is that they are sensible and responding to incentives
correctly. The LA basin is gigantic and they have to patrol all of it. Add in
the low taxes for police support, and you get the main problem of a street
officer: Backup is 25 minutes away. It's just you and your partner most of the
time. This, above all else, explains the LAPD.

The US Army ran into a similar problem in Iraq right after the fall. We became
the police, effectively. Problem was, just like in LA, the area was too big
for the force size. All small houses, all just sprawl, no back-up. Things
started out just the same as in LA. You are FORCED, in order to protect
yourselves, to be the Biggest Badass all around. You must culture a sense in
the populace that you DO NOT FUCK WITH the US Army. Brutality is necessary.
This is what the LAPD is doing, and it makes sense.

Thing is, Iraq taught us a lot about COIN, COunter INsurgency. What the army
ended up doing, and it was much more successful, was you deputize the local
leaders. Make them hash things out among themselves. Only call the Army when
you really need them. They do not become a patrol force, but a real big hammer
that whomps on things. Patrols are the job of local deputies.

The LAPD, being in California, cannot do this. The legal system here in the
states will not allow for local deputations of people in Compton and
Koreatown. Just from a benefits and payment perspective alone you can't do
this.

So, the LAPD is doing the best it can to stay alive, which is the situation
the taxpayers of LA county have put them in. You want less drones and a better
police force in LA? Pay them more to get more people on the streets. Give them
back-up. Then they won't be so brutal, because they won't be alone. Otherwise,
drones and the like are here to stay

~~~
higherpurpose
> This is what the LAPD is doing, and it makes sense.

No, it doesn't. LAPD is not the fucking army. The army on foreign land during
an invasion _has_ to treat everyone like a potential enemy that can take their
lives. The police does not and _should not_ act the same way against American
citizens. Their job is to _protect_ the citizens, not see every single one of
them as a potential enemy.

The police _is_ being paid well. But what do they do? They don't hire more
offiers with the money. Instead they buy tank-like vehicles, anti-air rockets
[1], _drones_ and train and equip the current officers to become more
_militarized_ (more SWAT teams, but also for regular officers).

As an army man, have you ever thought about why the army is not allowed to act
on US soil? Because the army is a much more aggressive _brute force_ sort of
authority, and that's _not acceptable_ in a democracy (unless you want to
_inevitably_ live in a civil war-like zone, as a response to that from the
population). That's why we have the police. If the police _becomes_ the army,
then that kind of screws everything up.

[1] - [http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nypd-shoot-planes-
weapon/story...](http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nypd-shoot-planes-
weapon/story?id=14608555)

~~~
mpyne
> The army on foreign land during an invasion has to treat everyone like a
> potential enemy that can take their lives.

That is not true at all. The U.S. Army occupying Germany in 1946 didn't treat
the locals as murderous criminals either.

The COIN mention by parent comment was not gratuitous: If you bother to go
through the relevant Army and Marine Corps doctrinal guidance on counter-
insurgency you'll see that gaining the support of the local population _is_
the mantra.

> As an army man, have you ever thought about why the army is not allowed to
> act on US soil?

They are allowed to act on US soil. What they're not allowed to do is to act
as police on US soil.

And even that prohibition (Posse Comitatus) came from Congress in the 1860s,
and only applies to Federal (Title 10) forces, not Army National Guard forces
under the control of a state governor.

And even with _that_ , the Army is allowed to conduct certain missions on U.S.
soil under "Defense Support to Civil Authorities".

> Because the army is a much more aggressive brute force sort of authority,
> and that's not acceptable in a democracy

The army has the capability and training to kill more people and break more
things, sure, but that is not their only mission.

Remember, in an actual war one of the core responsibilities of military forces
under international law is not just combat, but military occupation, which is
inherently a policing role. That can be in conjunction with local police
forces, but the responsibility still belongs to the occupying army.

Soldiers typically don't _like_ that role, sure, but to say that an army is
designed only to put bayonets through torsos is paranoiac at best.

------
joesmo
Police claim the drones will have "narrow and prescribed uses."

Interesting. That's the same claim that was made when LA introduced the first
SWAT team. I expect it to be just as true: false.

------
barefoot
I fly FPV aircraft as a hobby and don't find anything particulary scary about
police use of drones for increased situational awareness. They are excellent
low cost tools that could probably save both civilian and law enforcement
lives when used correctly.

A point that I find interesting - not brought up in the discussion here so far
- is that the reduced cost in equipment also makes it easier for ordinary
civilians to oversee police activity to some extent.

We're living in the world where anyone can make and own this amazing bit of
technology. It strikes me as bizarre to limit police from using them.

~~~
Yardlink
Indeed. They're not doing anything hobbyists like yourself can't do anyway. We
can't expect the government to be less capable than ordinary people. The
problem would be if the police can legally use drones for intrusive purposes
that are illegal for normal people. But if so, that's a problem with the law,
and it's the law that would need to be changed.

------
weland
Fifty bucks they'll "only use it for counter-terrorist operations".

Another fifty bucks says wearing dubious clothes is going to be a terrorist
operation fifteen years from now.

~~~
joesmo
Wearing dubious clothes is a "terrorist operation" nowadays, at least as far
as police reaction.

~~~
peteretep
Seems relevant:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diego/List_of_Guantanamo_B...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diego/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_accused_of_possessing_Casio_watches)

------
cheald
Well, if there's anyone that we can trust to behave honorably and to not abuse
their position of power, it's the LAPD.

------
DigitalSea
I don't know how I feel about this to be honest. On one hand I can see the
benefits of reduced costs. Why fly up a helicopter if a drone can be used in
its place? Why send police to patrol high-crime areas if a drone can do that
much more safely without any casualties?

Then there are the downsides.

> The LAPD is not the military. With these new tools at their disposal, the
> police could use drones to overstep their boundaries as police.

> If the drones are equipped with any kind of tactical ability (firing
> ammunition or firing a taser) this could result in innocent civilians being
> targeted by drone strikes.

> Drones would allow for extremely affordable surveillance which in turn would
> mean the fears of a state becoming a surveillance state (even worse than it
> is now) would be realised.

> Regulation. Who is going to regulate the use of drones by the LAPD? Who
> decides what the purpose of a drone being used for is and are there
> processes in place to prevent abuse? Who regulates the regulator?

> Remember what happened when SWAT teams were introduced? They were meant to
> be for only serious crimes and then look what happened. Before we knew it,
> SWAT teams were being deployed at relatively peaceful protests, they were
> being used to evict people out of their foreclosed homes and they started
> being used on people accused of copyright infringement. Are we going to see
> something similar to that of the Kent State shooting in the 70's only this
> time drones will be used?

I think the downsides far outweigh the benefits. The police are becoming far
too militarised for my liking. Although many refute these claims, you only
have to look at what tools police have at their disposal nowadays compared to
what they had 20 years ago. We've gone from cars and pistols to high-powered
machine guns with heavy rounds and tank-like vehicles.

------
adam74
I hated those things in HL2.

------
DrFunke
The fact that they say they'll be used sparingly is what makes me uneasy.

------
arpstick
I wonder if this means this will encourage criminals and gangs to stock up on
rocket propelled grenades and other anti aircraft weaponry.

~~~
serf
for a multirotor? How about a well-placed rock?

a roof mounted computer vision slingshot comes to mind.

~~~
arpstick
sounds like a great way to get slingshots made illegal in L.A.

------
thruffle
I wouldn't have much of a problem with this if they specified the "narrow and
prescribed" uses (and they seemed relatively tightly defined). One wonders if
they've actually decided on those uses internally and not shared it with the
public, or they haven't even made specific decisions there. Neither answer is
good, really.

------
transfire
Here's the problem that no seems to get (especially the police and our
politicians): the more they weaponize, the more the citizenry and criminals
weaponize to match. How much longer before we hear about the first mass
shooting using a drone?

------
Roboprog
I'm reminded of an old Larry Niven short story where kids hide in the park and
throw rocks at the "copseyes". An incidental part of the story was that the
police had floating camera platforms. And people didn't like them.

------
patcheudor
I want to know one thing. Will it be illegal to point a laser pointer at them?

~~~
btgeekboy
I see nothing in Title 18, Chapter 2, Section 39A [1] requiring the aircraft
to be manned. IANAL, though.

[1]
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title18/html/USCODE...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title18/html/USCODE-2012-title18-partI-
chap2-sec39A.htm)

------
aceperry
100 points for hacking the drone and bringing it down like Iran did to the US.

------
allochthon
Does anyone know why they're using a full-blown (possibly old-school) camera?
It seems like something digital would have been inexpensive and
straightforward to use, and would have fewer moving parts.

------
paulannesley
I wonder what the battery life is like, and whether they have any automated
ways to get them charged and back in the sky. Like auto-landing on a charging
bay - kind of like how Roombas dock and recharge.

~~~
Roboprog
Typical hobby aircraft lithium polymer battery lifetime is about 5 to 20
minutes. Be ready to swap batteries a few times an hour. They might have
batteries that can go an hour, but I can't see the batteries getting much
heavier than that.

------
stretchwithme
Personally, I'd rather have a drone land on a car and plug up the tailpipe
than have a high speed chase carried on through a populated neighborhood.

------
spacemanmatt
LDAP with drones? Is that so it can destroy you and the building you logged in
from after 3 failed password attempts?

------
betterunix
Just like SWAT teams are used sparingly...

------
aetherspawn
I was half expecting a Robocop scenerio.

------
bitL
Time to get a nice tough crowbar 8-)

------
Istof
sparingly during the course of the day (because the batteries don't last
anyways)

------
Tycho
What could possibly go wrong.

------
mlangdon
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

------
thwest
Arsenal implies they will be armed, right?

~~~
evan_
No, it doesn't.

------
leorocky
Why shouldn't law enforcement use drones? Law enforcement are bound by the
same laws any citizen is and they are the tool what we as a society use to
insure security in our lives. Why wouldn't we want to make their jobs easier?

The worse I could imagine is that drones are used to catch people smoking pot
in their backyards. The people who officiate over the police are elected
officials and all their practices, including data retention from surveillance
is subject to judicial review and the laws our representatives write.

Use of technology like this is inevitable anyway. It seems pointless to fight
it, and if you do oppose it how would you fight it anyway? Write to you
congress representative? Protest? Is that really going to work?

~~~
Blahah
Your post isn't self-consistent.

First you say that democracy means we have nothing to fear from police with
drones, then you imply it's pointless to resist because the democratic methods
don't work.

~~~
leorocky
I made no claims about democracy at all. I made a comment about police being
accountable to elected officials and another about the futility of protests in
this particular instance.

The police are accountable to elected officials. If there is the sort of
significant abuse this comment thread is full of, there will be popular
outcry.

The futility of protests and outraged posts on social news sites is nought to
do with democracy. The police are popular with the majority of Americans (This
is a post about a US city), and so if a minority of people object to tools
police use it is futile.

HN is rife with police hate and outrage but we have a very professional police
force filled with good people who do a good job protecting our security. If
you doubt it, try other countries that don't have what we have.

It's the libertarian streak of the average HN reader. If there's anything
inconsistent it's the libertarian who wants personal freedom to the extreme
but also a quality of life they are used to in a western democracy.

