US Police Using Predator Drones

[wuapinmon]

It's already happened:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec...rrest-20111211

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think that law enforcement needs tools to help them do their jobs more effectively and to minimize risk. However, I also think that police should never be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to tools and actions that [could] infringe on our privacy rights. A drone allows cops to observe, with extreme sensitivity, a spot of land for hours on end. Should that require a warrant? Do we consent to having cops peer into our backyards as much as they want to? Is this much different from classified satellite capabilities?

I think this technology will be the source of many lawsuits.

[Indy Coug]

What's the difference between this and suveillance cameras that are in fixed positions and have been in widespread use for a long time now, as far as privacy issues go?

[woot]

Until cops start getting punished for their illegal activities, there is little reason for them to obey the law. Until that happens, there's no reason to think any new technology they're allowed to use wouldn't be used for illegal purposes at least occasionally.

[wuapinmon]

What's the difference between this and suveillance cameras that are in fixed positions and have been in widespread use for a long time now, as far as privacy issues go?

I'd argue that a fixed-position camera is just that, fixed. A Predator can see in almost anywhere and be anywhere. They can be miles away and fixate on a spot and take photos like you're standing next to it.

I used to subscribe to the "only criminals have to worry" school of thought about these kinds of things, but I've seen to many abuses of power now to trust the authorities with unlimited surveillance capabilities, even though I think there are real and legitimate uses for this equipment.

[falafel]

IIRC, there is already a body of case law on overhead surveillance. It will be interesting to see predators causes the current body to be tweaked for the reasons you state. I'm not sure that it would. There is already a presumption (I'm using the non term of art here) that you have little to no privacy to stuff that's out in the open, i.e. your trash on the curb.

[falafel]

What's the difference between this and suveillance cameras that are in fixed positions and have been in widespread use for a long time now, as far as privacy issues go?

1. surveillance cameras used by private parties, right? We're not talking about police setting up a fixed surveillance camera that looks into your backyard, are we?

2. [related] it seems that surveillance cameras like the ones you are refernceing are generally used to watch one's own property, not another's.

[Paperback Writer]

Until cops start getting punished for their illegal activities, there is little reason for them to obey the law. Until that happens, there's no reason to think any new technology they're allowed to use wouldn't be used for illegal purposes at least occasionally.

But are not cameras or surveillance, at least independent ones, one of the ways to protect against police abuse? Without camera footage, it would have been the cops' words against Rodney Kings'.

I'm still forming my thoughts on the subject. I understand cameras are used extensively in the UK. Not sure if that's helped with police abuse or lower crime.

It's a complex issue. I don't want to be on camera 24/7 - there are privacy concerns. But if I'm falsely accused of assulting a police officier and/or resisting arrest - I hope there is camera footage for my defense because I don't stand a chance when it's a cop and his partner's testimony against mine in the courtroom.

[venkman]

I'm against it. Too much room for abuse.

[wuapinmon]

But are not cameras or surveillance, at least independent ones, one of the ways to protect against police abuse? Without camera footage, it would have been the cops' words against Rodney Kings'.

I'm still forming my thoughts on the subject. I understand cameras are used extensively in the UK. Not sure if that's helped with police abuse or lower crime.

It's a complex issue. I don't want to be on camera 24/7 - there are privacy concerns. But if I'm falsely accused of assulting a police officier and/or resisting arrest - I hope there is camera footage for my defense because I don't stand a chance when it's a cop and his partner's testimony against mine in the courtroom.

This is less about footage from a police cruiser, and more about them watching you in your back yard, or, if you're cowboy, 20 acres in from the road on your property.

[Katy Lied]

1. surveillance cameras used by private parties, right?

Not. These surveillance cameras are private funding of an aid to public service. Something goes awry and the first thing the cops do is confiscate the tapes.

[il Padrino Ute]

What's the difference between this and suveillance cameras that are in fixed positions and have been in widespread use for a long time now, as far as privacy issues go?

Those cameras are not able to observe what you, I or anyone else is doing on their private property.

[Moliere]

This is less about footage from a police cruiser, and more about them watching you in your back yard, or, if you're cowboy, 20 acres in from the road on your property.

But without a warrant they wouldn't be able to observe you anyway. I'm not entirely enthuastic about drones used by police, but I'd think our legal system (with warrants) is adequate enough to keep the police in check.

[woot]

But without a warrant they wouldn't be able to observe you anyway. I'm not entirely enthuastic about drones used by police, but I'd think our legal system (with warrants) is adequate enough to keep the police in check.

Well, unless somebody decides that warrants aren't necessary. Oh wait.

[wuapinmon]

But without a warrant they wouldn't be able to observe you anyway. I'm not entirely enthuastic about drones used by police, but I'd think our legal system (with warrants) is adequate enough to keep the police in check.

I have no issue with their use after a warrant has been issued. But, I get the feeling that these will be deemed acceptable without a warrant, and that doesn't sit well with me.

[falafel]

Not. These surveillance cameras are private funding of an aid to public service. Something goes awry and the first thing the cops do is confiscate the tapes.

Sure, but the cops aren't putting the cameras up. They don't choose the locations, change the tapes, maintain the system, etc. They're just leap frogging.