6 ms·

FBI uses drones inside U.S. for spying, director says

126 points by daegloe 13y ago

InternalRun 13y ago
It is inevitable that they will use drones to spy on us. It is cheap and easy, why send teams of people to track someone 24/7 when you can have a robot do it for you. Unless new laws are brought in this will become regular practice. We have all seen the drones DARPA are working on.
- iguana 13y ago
  What makes you think we can legislate our way out of this?
  - InternalRun 13y ago
    I think it will take more than legislate alone but I think it would be a step in the right direction. I just really want some transparency. Recording where everyone is going and having a mass database of it and then PRISM collecting all information about who you call and your online activities is a very worrying idea and it is 70% implemented.
    - iguana 13y ago
      All it will do is make life difficult for autonomous vehicle startups, while the incumbent drone manufacturers will continue to design, produce, and sell drones to the FBI, for a massively lucrative markup. Edit: just saw your edit. Technology essentially prevents physical anonymity, and if it doesn't today, it will within the next decade for sure. I agree that what we all need is transparency.
  - nathas 13y ago
    The technology isn't going away, and public key crypto to protect your identity doesn't exist (visually) so...
    - iguana 13y ago
      ...wear a hat? :) You have no expectation of privacy in public. Otherwise, the paparazzi would be out of a job.
      - PavlovsCat 13y ago
        Not that I am a fan of paparazzis, but you are mistaking random people with persons of public interest. If every person had a bunch of people following them, taking photos, video and notes, how long do you think that would hold up? And how is it different just because it gets automated and hidden?
        iguana 13y ago
        It seems to have held up since the invention of cameras. I see this as inevitable: the technology is nearly here, the market demand is certainly here, the dots will be connected, legally, or otherwise.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        It seems to have held up Bullshit. I asked you to imagine something, you just bumble off into nonsense.
iguana 13y ago
Drones, like guns and cars, are just tools, and themselves not inherently evil. I don't see a problem with the FBI using unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance, so long as they do it within the confines of the law (and not some preposterous interpretation by a secret court). As long as a they have a specific warrant, this is just a clever application of technology, and a far cheaper alternative to a helicopter with crew. We already have traffic cameras and satellites, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy outdoors. Also, it isn't like these devices are able to pilot themselves, they're just remotely controlled aerial vehicles. What if the FBI put a video camera on a weather balloon?
- smokeyj 13y ago
  > Drones .. are just tools, and themselves not inherently evil. The tools aren't evil, but our authoritarian corporatocracy might be.
  - iguana 13y ago
    Don't ascribe malice to what can be adequately explained by righteous and shortsighted self-preservation.
    - smokeyj 13y ago
      If the overly righteous and shortsighted preservation of a police state isn't evil, I don't know what is.
      - iguana 13y ago
        I highly doubt the motivation of the past and current administration are "evil". I highly doubt that Bush or Obama wanted a massive surveillance state and a "minority report" type of future. The problem is that righteous and shortsighted people are rarely aware of being shortsighted. They built an infrastructure of turnkey tyranny to protect us from what may very well be a real threat, and swear that there's a system of checks and balances to protect us not because they are "evil" but because they are righteous. Their righteousness blinds them to their shortsightedness. So, no, I still can't see them as evil. Just foolish.
digz 13y ago
As far as I can tell, Mueller didn't say the FBI uses drones to spy* on us. There may be specific reasons why/where drones are useful... don't really understand why this is news. Law enforcement has been using airplanes and helicopters for decades for various purposes. What is so odious about unmanned versions of the same thing? As long as the missions are lawful, not sure why this is any different.
- iguana 13y ago
  I suspect it will become different eventually, when drones are much, much smaller, and weaponized. But the FBI isn't using those yet, so I agree, this is just opportunistic reporting since everyone is talking about the surveillance state. Demonstrates that journalists, for the most part, are clueless and lazy.
justinwr 13y ago
Helicopters.
beloch 13y ago
The FBI currently uses Helicopters and people generally don't complain about them violating their privacy. However, this may be because Helicopters are rather hard to miss if one is parked over your back-yard. Drones can be much smaller and quieter than any manned aircraft, and some even have the capability of entering buildings. In the near future we can expect drones the size of insects to enter use. Suggestions: 1. A drone presence should be legally treated the same way as the presence of an FBI officer. Namely, to enter private premises they should require a warrant. 2. Legally require drones used in public spaces to be equipped with lights/speakers to make their presence as detectable as a helicopter. I'd rather not live in a society where insect-sized drones could be eavesdropping on any conversation or watching everything you do without your knowledge.
- callmeed 13y ago
  Regarding 1, how high, vertically, does my private premises extend? Is it the 500' described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights ?
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    So the drones should not be able to take picture of anything below 500 feet above ground without a warrant, but they could fly over 500 feet without taking pics/vid. OK?
  - asynchronous13 13y ago
    No. Air rights extend only as high as the land owner reasonably uses. A landowner with a 3-story house has a rightful claim to higher airspace than a neighbor with a single story house. The specific height has not been determined in a courtroom, but it's likely to be a short distance (~10ft) above any structures on the property.
    - callmeed 13y ago
      Ok, thanks for the clarification. So, can a govt drone fly 100' over my house and photography me sunbathing nude in my fenced backyard?
francistw 13y ago
Open question: is this what was chasing LA Times journalist Michael Hastings a few nights ago? Sharyl Attkisson thought she was paranoid, until her employer (CBS News) discovered her computers were indeed being hacked.

126 points by daegloe 13y ago

It is inevitable that they will use drones to spy on us. It is cheap and easy, why send teams of people to track someone 24/7 when you can have a robot do it for you. Unless new laws are brought in this will become regular practice. We have all seen the drones DARPA are working on.

iguana 13y ago
What makes you think we can legislate our way out of this?
- InternalRun 13y ago
  I think it will take more than legislate alone but I think it would be a step in the right direction. I just really want some transparency. Recording where everyone is going and having a mass database of it and then PRISM collecting all information about who you call and your online activities is a very worrying idea and it is 70% implemented.
  - iguana 13y ago
    All it will do is make life difficult for autonomous vehicle startups, while the incumbent drone manufacturers will continue to design, produce, and sell drones to the FBI, for a massively lucrative markup. Edit: just saw your edit. Technology essentially prevents physical anonymity, and if it doesn't today, it will within the next decade for sure. I agree that what we all need is transparency.
- nathas 13y ago
  The technology isn't going away, and public key crypto to protect your identity doesn't exist (visually) so...
  - iguana 13y ago
    ...wear a hat? :) You have no expectation of privacy in public. Otherwise, the paparazzi would be out of a job.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Not that I am a fan of paparazzis, but you are mistaking random people with persons of public interest. If every person had a bunch of people following them, taking photos, video and notes, how long do you think that would hold up? And how is it different just because it gets automated and hidden?
      - iguana 13y ago
        It seems to have held up since the invention of cameras. I see this as inevitable: the technology is nearly here, the market demand is certainly here, the dots will be connected, legally, or otherwise.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        It seems to have held up Bullshit. I asked you to imagine something, you just bumble off into nonsense.

iguana 13y ago

Drones, like guns and cars, are just tools, and themselves not inherently evil. I don't see a problem with the FBI using unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance, so long as they do it within the confines of the law (and not some preposterous interpretation by a secret court). As long as a they have a specific warrant, this is just a clever application of technology, and a far cheaper alternative to a helicopter with crew. We already have traffic cameras and satellites, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy outdoors. Also, it isn't like these devices are able to pilot themselves, they're just remotely controlled aerial vehicles. What if the FBI put a video camera on a weather balloon?

smokeyj 13y ago
> Drones .. are just tools, and themselves not inherently evil. The tools aren't evil, but our authoritarian corporatocracy might be.
- iguana 13y ago
  Don't ascribe malice to what can be adequately explained by righteous and shortsighted self-preservation.
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    If the overly righteous and shortsighted preservation of a police state isn't evil, I don't know what is.
    - iguana 13y ago
      I highly doubt the motivation of the past and current administration are "evil". I highly doubt that Bush or Obama wanted a massive surveillance state and a "minority report" type of future. The problem is that righteous and shortsighted people are rarely aware of being shortsighted. They built an infrastructure of turnkey tyranny to protect us from what may very well be a real threat, and swear that there's a system of checks and balances to protect us not because they are "evil" but because they are righteous. Their righteousness blinds them to their shortsightedness. So, no, I still can't see them as evil. Just foolish.

digz 13y ago

As far as I can tell, Mueller didn't say the FBI uses drones to spy* on us. There may be specific reasons why/where drones are useful... don't really understand why this is news. Law enforcement has been using airplanes and helicopters for decades for various purposes. What is so odious about unmanned versions of the same thing? As long as the missions are lawful, not sure why this is any different.

iguana 13y ago
I suspect it will become different eventually, when drones are much, much smaller, and weaponized. But the FBI isn't using those yet, so I agree, this is just opportunistic reporting since everyone is talking about the surveillance state. Demonstrates that journalists, for the most part, are clueless and lazy.

justinwr 13y ago

Helicopters.

beloch 13y ago

The FBI currently uses Helicopters and people generally don't complain about them violating their privacy. However, this may be because Helicopters are rather hard to miss if one is parked over your back-yard. Drones can be much smaller and quieter than any manned aircraft, and some even have the capability of entering buildings. In the near future we can expect drones the size of insects to enter use. Suggestions: 1. A drone presence should be legally treated the same way as the presence of an FBI officer. Namely, to enter private premises they should require a warrant. 2. Legally require drones used in public spaces to be equipped with lights/speakers to make their presence as detectable as a helicopter. I'd rather not live in a society where insect-sized drones could be eavesdropping on any conversation or watching everything you do without your knowledge.

callmeed 13y ago
Regarding 1, how high, vertically, does my private premises extend? Is it the 500' described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights ?
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  So the drones should not be able to take picture of anything below 500 feet above ground without a warrant, but they could fly over 500 feet without taking pics/vid. OK?
- asynchronous13 13y ago
  No. Air rights extend only as high as the land owner reasonably uses. A landowner with a 3-story house has a rightful claim to higher airspace than a neighbor with a single story house. The specific height has not been determined in a courtroom, but it's likely to be a short distance (~10ft) above any structures on the property.
  - callmeed 13y ago
    Ok, thanks for the clarification. So, can a govt drone fly 100' over my house and photography me sunbathing nude in my fenced backyard?

francistw 13y ago

Open question: is this what was chasing LA Times journalist Michael Hastings a few nights ago? Sharyl Attkisson thought she was paranoid, until her employer (CBS News) discovered her computers were indeed being hacked.