5 ms·

I still think that by focusing on drones as a unique form of surveillance the focus is being diverted. In concept there's no difference between a police depart

by _djo_ 14y ago

I still think that by focusing on drones as a unique form of surveillance the focus is being diverted. In concept there's no difference between a police department flying a helicopter with an electro-optical surveillance turret and it flying a UAV equipped with the same. Why is one ok but the other not? It can't be about UAVs flying higher up so they can't be seen or heard, as helicopters are becoming quieter and sensors better so that they can view scenes from much further away without being heard either. Similarly there are vehicle-mounted optronics masts available to police departments that can capture video footage of areas kilometres away. I know of an arrest and successful prosecution that happened recently in South Africa that relied on video of a crime that was captured by one of these vehicles 3.5 km from the scene. The real issue here is persistent video (mostly aerial) surveillance, something which has theoretically been possible with police helicopters until now but has not been done because the logistics make it impossible. That will not necessarily remain true forever. Fact is UAVs will be used by police departments under the same authorisation and rules that make it legal to use helicopters, purely because the cost and flexibility will be irresistible, so trying to ban the domestic use of UAVs is doomed to fail. Instead, there should be public pressure to strongly regulate how, when and where police departments can collect video and what they're allowed to do with it. That will have the benefit of not only restricting what police UAVs can do but also police helicopters and vehicle-mounted optronics masts.

ari_elle 14y ago
+1 There should be clear regulations and the public should know what exactly is being done. That is what the EFF basically wants. Other than that i think that using Drones for such purposes also can proof a good testing process. You don't want to loose a drone over Iran, test it here under real circumstances.
wladimir 14y ago
I kind of agree. Personally I have no problems with drones being used where police helicopters are now. It's cheaper, safer, and probably more effective too. However, and this is a big issue, drones are thus cheap making it possible to use them much more than police helicopters are now. It's just hardware, you can buy a lot of it. I dread thinking about a future where drones will be swarming everywhere, collecting information aspecifically, to collect and process and find every tiny violation, obliterating any sense of privacy. I agree that's not a technology problem. And regulating technology won't solve it. But it should not be ignored either. Advancing technology does open a lot of debates about what we want life to be really like. A much-heard argument against a 1984-like scenario in the 80's used to be "it's too expensive". It isn't anymore. And drones are only a small part of that.
- _djo_ 14y ago
  Agreed. As I said I think the problem is one of persistent surveillance. This is only going to get worse as technology develops and it becomes possible for governments and police departments to deploy hundreds or thousands of insect-sized drones through our cities. That's why I think focusing on drones obscures the real issue and makes it more difficult to have the serious and very necessary debate about whether we want to live in societies where the state is able to track you persistently in any public space. We already have the beginnings of something similar in cities like London, where thousands of CCTV cameras are every bit as invasive of our privacy as a police drone flying overhead would be. In other words this battle against the police use of drones like the Predator could be 'won' and it would probably not make any difference to the police's ability to track you with video and audio surveillance.
  - wladimir 14y ago
    Yes, I think the underlying reason that drones are brought into these kind of discussions is because people are terrified of armed drones, especially autonomous ones. They make war cheap in the same way as CCTVs make surveillance cheap. But that's a completely different issue and shouldn't distract from the domestic surveillance one which is (at the moment) much more pressing.
cynoclast 14y ago
There is a difference. I would have not a single qualm about shooting down an unmanned drone. I would never even consider so much as LASER pointering an actual piloted vehicle. But I will not be a subject to a society that thinks it can police me with robots. The line has to be drawn somewhere. We have already let them ignore the 4th amendment with the TSA, stop-and-frisks, and warrantless wiretapping. If they think I'm going to take having remote control toys police me, they are in for a nasty surprise. Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
- avar 14y ago
  How about sacrificing your own freedom by being sent to prison for destroying police property and endangering people on the ground by shooting down what's essentially a small aircraft?
thwest 14y ago
Bureaucratically it is easier to fight the most recently approved violation of privacy than an older one. The budgets are less entrenched, and the programs are under higher scrutiny for internal reasons. The EFF would strongly agree that there is no difference in loss of privacy from manned or unmanned surveillance. One is just easier to fight.
spiffage 14y ago
The first step to doing that is to understand how drones are being used by local law enforcement. Right now, the FAA makes information about manned aircraft available to the public, but not drones. This is the difference. Right now, the public has the tools to understand how they're being surveilled by manned aircraft, but lacks the tools to understand how drones are doing it. It's not a diversion of focus.
hrktb 14y ago
From another POV, if there was a clause to force police's 24/24 surveillance video to be available to the public on reasonable terms, even on conflicts or lawsuits against police officers, it could be a easier pill to swallow.

by _djo_ 14y ago

ari_elle 14y ago

+1 There should be clear regulations and the public should know what exactly is being done. That is what the EFF basically wants. Other than that i think that using Drones for such purposes also can proof a good testing process. You don't want to loose a drone over Iran, test it here under real circumstances.

wladimir 14y ago

I kind of agree. Personally I have no problems with drones being used where police helicopters are now. It's cheaper, safer, and probably more effective too. However, and this is a big issue, drones are thus cheap making it possible to use them much more than police helicopters are now. It's just hardware, you can buy a lot of it. I dread thinking about a future where drones will be swarming everywhere, collecting information aspecifically, to collect and process and find every tiny violation, obliterating any sense of privacy. I agree that's not a technology problem. And regulating technology won't solve it. But it should not be ignored either. Advancing technology does open a lot of debates about what we want life to be really like. A much-heard argument against a 1984-like scenario in the 80's used to be "it's too expensive". It isn't anymore. And drones are only a small part of that.

_djo_ 14y ago
Agreed. As I said I think the problem is one of persistent surveillance. This is only going to get worse as technology develops and it becomes possible for governments and police departments to deploy hundreds or thousands of insect-sized drones through our cities. That's why I think focusing on drones obscures the real issue and makes it more difficult to have the serious and very necessary debate about whether we want to live in societies where the state is able to track you persistently in any public space. We already have the beginnings of something similar in cities like London, where thousands of CCTV cameras are every bit as invasive of our privacy as a police drone flying overhead would be. In other words this battle against the police use of drones like the Predator could be 'won' and it would probably not make any difference to the police's ability to track you with video and audio surveillance.
- wladimir 14y ago
  Yes, I think the underlying reason that drones are brought into these kind of discussions is because people are terrified of armed drones, especially autonomous ones. They make war cheap in the same way as CCTVs make surveillance cheap. But that's a completely different issue and shouldn't distract from the domestic surveillance one which is (at the moment) much more pressing.

cynoclast 14y ago

There is a difference. I would have not a single qualm about shooting down an unmanned drone. I would never even consider so much as LASER pointering an actual piloted vehicle. But I will not be a subject to a society that thinks it can police me with robots. The line has to be drawn somewhere. We have already let them ignore the 4th amendment with the TSA, stop-and-frisks, and warrantless wiretapping. If they think I'm going to take having remote control toys police me, they are in for a nasty surprise. Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

avar 14y ago
How about sacrificing your own freedom by being sent to prison for destroying police property and endangering people on the ground by shooting down what's essentially a small aircraft?

thwest 14y ago

Bureaucratically it is easier to fight the most recently approved violation of privacy than an older one. The budgets are less entrenched, and the programs are under higher scrutiny for internal reasons. The EFF would strongly agree that there is no difference in loss of privacy from manned or unmanned surveillance. One is just easier to fight.

spiffage 14y ago

The first step to doing that is to understand how drones are being used by local law enforcement. Right now, the FAA makes information about manned aircraft available to the public, but not drones. This is the difference. Right now, the public has the tools to understand how they're being surveilled by manned aircraft, but lacks the tools to understand how drones are doing it. It's not a diversion of focus.

hrktb 14y ago

From another POV, if there was a clause to force police's 24/24 surveillance video to be available to the public on reasonable terms, even on conflicts or lawsuits against police officers, it could be a easier pill to swallow.