4 ms·

There may be an interesting space in "right to drone" (or however you want to put it). Simply, considering the one mention how they used drones to monitor prot

There may be an interesting space in "right to drone" (or however you want to put it). Simply, considering the one mention how they used drones to monitor protests, it may be fair to assume that these drones were being used in way or in places where it may well have been illegal for civilians to use such systems (I am not well informed on where civilians can or can not use drones, I just know, anecdotally, that it seems the air space for civilian drones continues to shrink). That suggests that the police have authority to use air space for their purposes, such as monitoring civilian activity, but civilians do not have a similar, legal, capability to use the same technology to monitor police activity. Police have always had extra powers. I don't think I can hire a private investigator to go to court, convince a judge, and get a writ, or warrant, or whatever to place a tap on another persons phone, like the police can. But, even still, its fair to argue that the separation of powers between the state and citizenry should be narrow. Police activity in public is, well, in public, and I think well within the purview of the citizenry to be able to watch and monitor freely. But, in specific regards to these drone uses, and restrictions there on, I don't know if that's a level playing field any more.

adolph 3y ago
From the article: Federal drone law says that “no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being.” But the NYPD has an exemption waiver from the Federal Aviation Administration through August 2025 that allows it to fly drones in populated areas, at night, over 400 feet in the air, among other things.
vondur 3y ago
Heck, they have the ability to have helicopters flying overhead whenever they feel, so drones are just an extension of that power. Or at least, that is how they would spin it.
lmm 3y ago
> Police have always had extra powers. I don't think I can hire a private investigator to go to court, convince a judge, and get a writ, or warrant, or whatever to place a tap on another persons phone, like the police can. Hmm, that's directly contrary to one of Peel's founding principles. > To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
dmoy 3y ago
> But, even still, its fair to argue that the separation of powers between the state and citizenry should be narrow. I think that ship sailed a long time ago. Beyond the wiretapping example you mentioned: Qualified immunity: cops can do a wide range of things in the line of duty (or even vaguely approximating the line of duty) and not have liability for the consequences of their actions (including like, killing random bystanders). Firearms: cops can get new machineguns. Cops are explicitly granted exceptions from almost all gun laws (and in some cases, even ex cops). (Practically speaking) traffic laws: maybe not ubiquitous in every city, but cops can just disregard traffic laws when they want, with impunity. Lying: a cop can go to great lengths to lie and decieve you while conducting their business, interviewing or interrogation, etc. If you lie to them, it gets you in a really bad spot when it comes time for court. In many jurisdictions (for example my own state), just lying to a cop is technically punishable by thousands of dollars and/or up to a year of jail. Etc etc etc
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- yreg 3y ago
  >a cop can go to great lengths to lie and decieve you while conducting their business, interviewing or interrogation, etc. If you lie to them, it gets you in a really bad spot when it comes time for court European here, but is this really true? Over here it's the cops who usually can't lie and defendants are free to lie when defending themselves.
  - dmoy 3y ago
    Yup it's the opposite here There are limits on exactly how a cop can lie, though the bar is sort of ambiguous - it can't "shock the conscience". They also ostensibly can't entrap you.
  - bhelkey 3y ago
    Yes. Police are allowed to lie during interviews/interrogations [2]. However, they are not allowed to lie during trial. Those in the US have the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney. After invoking either or both of those rights, the interrogation must stop [1]. The only limit to deception during interrogation that I am aware of is that some states limit police from lying to minors [2]. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/questioning-after-claiming-miranda.html#:~:text=Sometimes%20police%20can%20continue%20to,police%20must%20stop%20the%20interrogation https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/questioning-after-cl.... [2] https://www.teenvogue.com/story/police-deception-interrogation-youth https://www.teenvogue.com/story/police-deception-interrogati...

adolph 3y ago

From the article: Federal drone law says that “no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being.” But the NYPD has an exemption waiver from the Federal Aviation Administration through August 2025 that allows it to fly drones in populated areas, at night, over 400 feet in the air, among other things.

vondur 3y ago

Heck, they have the ability to have helicopters flying overhead whenever they feel, so drones are just an extension of that power. Or at least, that is how they would spin it.

lmm 3y ago

> Police have always had extra powers. I don't think I can hire a private investigator to go to court, convince a judge, and get a writ, or warrant, or whatever to place a tap on another persons phone, like the police can. Hmm, that's directly contrary to one of Peel's founding principles. > To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

dmoy 3y ago

> But, even still, its fair to argue that the separation of powers between the state and citizenry should be narrow. I think that ship sailed a long time ago. Beyond the wiretapping example you mentioned: Qualified immunity: cops can do a wide range of things in the line of duty (or even vaguely approximating the line of duty) and not have liability for the consequences of their actions (including like, killing random bystanders). Firearms: cops can get new machineguns. Cops are explicitly granted exceptions from almost all gun laws (and in some cases, even ex cops). (Practically speaking) traffic laws: maybe not ubiquitous in every city, but cops can just disregard traffic laws when they want, with impunity. Lying: a cop can go to great lengths to lie and decieve you while conducting their business, interviewing or interrogation, etc. If you lie to them, it gets you in a really bad spot when it comes time for court. In many jurisdictions (for example my own state), just lying to a cop is technically punishable by thousands of dollars and/or up to a year of jail. Etc etc etc

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yreg 3y ago
>a cop can go to great lengths to lie and decieve you while conducting their business, interviewing or interrogation, etc. If you lie to them, it gets you in a really bad spot when it comes time for court European here, but is this really true? Over here it's the cops who usually can't lie and defendants are free to lie when defending themselves.
- dmoy 3y ago
  Yup it's the opposite here There are limits on exactly how a cop can lie, though the bar is sort of ambiguous - it can't "shock the conscience". They also ostensibly can't entrap you.
- bhelkey 3y ago
  Yes. Police are allowed to lie during interviews/interrogations [2]. However, they are not allowed to lie during trial. Those in the US have the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney. After invoking either or both of those rights, the interrogation must stop [1]. The only limit to deception during interrogation that I am aware of is that some states limit police from lying to minors [2]. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/questioning-after-claiming-miranda.html#:~:text=Sometimes%20police%20can%20continue%20to,police%20must%20stop%20the%20interrogation https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/questioning-after-cl.... [2] https://www.teenvogue.com/story/police-deception-interrogation-youth https://www.teenvogue.com/story/police-deception-interrogati...