• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Domestic use of aerial drones by law enforcement likely to prompt privacy debate

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,099
Reaction score
33,416
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 23, 2011; 12:56 AM

AUSTIN - The suspect's house, just west of this city, sat on a hilltop at the end of a steep, exposed driveway. Agents with the Texas Department of Public Safety believed the man inside had a large stash of drugs and a cache of weapons, including high-caliber rifles.
As dawn broke, a SWAT team waiting to execute a search warrant wanted a last-minute aerial sweep of the property, in part to check for unseen dangers. But there was a problem: The department's aircraft section feared that if it put up a helicopter, the suspect might try to shoot it down.
So the Texas agents did what no state or local law enforcement agency had done before in a high-risk operation: They launched a drone. A bird-size device called a Wasp floated hundreds of feet into the sky and instantly beamed live video to agents on the ground. The SWAT team stormed the house and arrested the suspect..........
The Houston Police Department considered participating in a pilot program to study the use of drones, including for evacuations, search and rescue, and tactical operations. In the end, it withdrew.
A spokesman for Houston police said the department would not comment on why the program, to have been run in cooperation with the FAA, was aborted in 2007, but traffic tickets might have had something to do with it.
When KPRC-TV in Houston, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., discovered a secret drone air show for dozens of officers at a remote location 70 miles from Houston, police officials were forced to call a hasty news conference to explain their interest in the technology.
A senior officer in Houston then mentioned to reporters that drones might ultimately be used for recording traffic violations.
Federal officials said support for the program crashed.
Click to expand...
I doubt there is much the public can do to stop this, but I say there are police depts that think they're doing the right thing while invading people's privacy. The trouble with police is that they allow a lot of internal corruption shielded from the same scrutiny as the public. If a police officer or chief had a drone flying over his house, eyeballing him humping his wife, he might think twice about surveiling his neighbor.
 
What's the difference between an aerial sweep from drone or a helicopter, surveillance wise? If anything, you could fit higher tech on a helicopter than a drone. Though, I'll clarify that by saying if they're using the drones to hover in front of windows, or something similar, that's a clear breach of privacy.
 
I think a aerial drone is the last thing they should use for law enforcement. It opens the door for the government to have these flying everywhere.
 
spud_meister said:
What's the difference between an aerial sweep from drone or a helicopter, surveillance wise? If anything, you could fit higher tech on a helicopter than a drone. Though, I'll clarify that by saying if they're using the drones to hover in front of windows, or something similar, that's a clear breach of privacy.
Click to expand...

I think you answered your own question. A helicopter can not hover in front of windows, or something similar. Nor can a helicopter fly within a few feet of your property.
 
jamesrage said:
I think you answered your own question. A helicopter can not hover in front of windows, or something similar. Nor can a helicopter fly within a few feet of your property.
Click to expand...

But, as in the OP, the drone was used exactly how a helicopter would be:
They launched a drone. A bird-size device called a Wasp floated hundreds of feet into the sky and instantly beamed live video to agents on the ground.
Click to expand...

If it's being used like that, in lieu of a helicopter, with no risk to any cops lives, I don't have a problem with it.
 
spud_meister said:
But, as in the OP, the drone was used exactly how a helicopter would be:

If it's being used like that, in lieu of a helicopter, with no risk to any cops lives, I don't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

Don't they have helicopters with very powerful cameras that can beam live video? This seems like nothing more than a ploy to get people used to the idea of drones flying around.
 
jamesrage said:
Don't they have helicopters with very powerful cameras that can beam live video? This seems like nothing more than a ploy to get people used to the idea of drones flying around.
Click to expand...

Or, it was that it's safer for everyone involved if a guy with "high calibre rifles" shoots at a drone rather than a helicopter.

I do have a problem with drones as they are open to abuse by law enforcement, but if they're used in a strictly regulated manner, perhaps needing a warrant for their use, in cases when helicopters wouldn't suffice (eg. if it's likely that the helicopter would be shot at), then they could be quite useful.
 
If a PRIVATE company can have it's satellites in SPACE take detailed photos of everyone's property around the world, release it for it's own purposes to the internet at large, then I see no reason why the government can't do the same.

:shrug:

I have bombers and jets fly overhead all the time - and I'm a 40 minute drive from the air force base. . . am I angry or paranoid? No.

I think the WASP is pretty danged cool, really.
 
spud_meister said:
Or, it was that it's safer for everyone involved if a guy with "high calibre rifles" shoots at a drone rather than a helicopter.
Click to expand...

Helicopters can see pretty far and at a safe distance.


I do have a problem with drones as they are open to abuse by law enforcement, but if they're used in a strictly regulated manner,
Click to expand...

I do not see them being used in a strictly regulated manner. I see law enforcement using private citizens who are not bound by the same regulations as the police are to use aerial drones without warrants.


perhaps needing a warrant for their use, in cases when helicopters wouldn't suffice (eg. if it's likely that the helicopter would be shot at), then they could be quite useful.
Click to expand...

And as soon as people get used to seeing law enforcement use drones they will comply with the government sticking these things everywhere to monitor the public.
 
I don't think they should have these drones up in the air, not only is it an invasion of privacy, but if they get these drones up in the air how long before we start having covert missile strikes here in the US? I'm not saying that that would happen, I'm just saying that we need to recognize that as a possibility.
 
They used the drone to execute a lawful search warrant at minimum risk to life or property. This is what law enforcement should be doing. Hell of a lot better than no-knock warrants and warrantless wiretapping.
 
Satellite and airplanes are already *up there*
Why is this a new concern? They're doing no more than anyone else has already *been* doing for quite some time.

Issues concerning Google as an invasion of privacy have been taken to court - and the courts have ruled that public domain = air = not an invasion of privacy.

If someone's done something that would net a WASP being deployed (which doesn't come cheap, btw) then I most certainly won't be standing in the way - more so - I'd like that person to get OUT of my neighborhood.

You do not have an expectation of privacy over your outside yard - or even through your open windows. If someone can see in, then you're being publicly viewed. . . laws don't state things quite so bluntly but the rulings of many different court cases have supported this view.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Satellite and airplanes are already *up there*
Why is this a new concern? They're doing no more than anyone else has already *been* doing for quite some time.

Issues concerning Google as an invasion of privacy have been taken to court - and the courts have ruled that public domain = air = not an invasion of privacy.

If someone's done something that would net a WASP being deployed (which doesn't come cheap, btw) then I most certainly won't be standing in the way - more so - I'd like that person to get OUT of my neighborhood.

You do not have an expectation of privacy over your outside yard - or even through your open windows. If someone can see in, then you're being publicly viewed. . . laws don't state things quite so bluntly but the rulings of many different court cases have supported this view.
Click to expand...


Which is the 4th amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

or

The right of the people to be secure only in their houses with the tinted windows, windows shut,blinds and curtains shut, doors locks, and x-ray thermal imaging proof walls and roof.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with other posters who have said if these drones are used to fulfill the role that helicopters are normally playing, then I cant find too much reason to be against them.
 
With all of the budget deficits that cities are facing, why in the hell is this even being discussed. There is no money, so there should be NO drones.
 
tlmorg02 said:
With all of the budget deficits that cities are facing, why in the hell is this even being discussed. There is no money, so there should be NO drones.
Click to expand...
This is an important point, one that I agree with completely.

Do we have an indication that drones are cheaper than helicopters?
 
Hoplite said:
This is an important point, one that I agree with completely.

Do we have an indication that drones are cheaper than helicopters?
Click to expand...

On Wiki, it quotes the cost per unit around $4million, that sounds much more expensive than the upkeep on a helicopter.
 
I don't see why people are freaking out over the cops using a drone for a warranted search. Now, if the cops did this without a warrant, I would be pretty pissed, but I don't see how a drone is unacceptable and other methods are.

BTW, I'm a bit hazy on the costs of a drone vs the cost of a helicopter, but I have a feeling that the drone is a waste of money. The cops probably just wanted an excuse to justify the expense.
 
Last edited:
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I don't see why people are freaking out over the cops using a drone for a warranted search. Now, if the cops did this without a warrant, I would be pretty pissed, but I don't see how a drone is unacceptable and other methods are.

BTW, I'm a bit hazy on the costs of a drone vs the cost of a helicopter, but I have a feeling that the drone is a waste of money. The cops probably just wanted an excuse to justify the expense.
Click to expand...

I can think of some reasons to not want these for civilian law enforcement use.

1.Some cops will use these without a warrant because there already some people who thinks the 4th amendment only applies only if someone is in their house with the windows shut, curtain closed and so on. Some will just let civilians use these to spy on people for them.

2.A precursor to these things being everywhere.

3.civilians getting their hands on these.Technology becomes cheaper overtime.
 
jamesrage said:
1.Some cops will use these without a warrant because there already some people who thinks the 4th amendment only applies only if someone is in their house with the windows shut, curtain closed and so on. Some will just let civilians use these to spy on people for them.
Click to expand...
Something that would get thrown out in any court of law.

2.A precursor to these things being everywhere.
Click to expand...
Police are everywhere, why are these different?

3.civilians getting their hands on these.Technology becomes cheaper overtime.
Click to expand...
Civilians can already access this technology for relatively low amounts of money.
 
jamesrage said:
Which is the 4th amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

or

The right of the people to be secure only in their houses with the tinted windows, windows shut,blinds and curtains shut, doors locks, and x-ray thermal imaging proof walls and roof.
Click to expand...

Various courts of the US disagree with you :shrug:

To battle a court-precedent you have to climb the judicial mountain to the top.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Various courts of the US disagree with you :shrug:

To battle a court-precedent you have to climb the judicial mountain to the top.
Click to expand...

What court decisions says the 4th only applies if you are inside your house?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom