Drones Becoming Pervasive INSIDE America

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/drones-becoming-pervasive-inside.html


"AP noted http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/20100614feds_under_pressure_to_open_us_skies_to_drones last year:


Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the pressure’s on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act.

The Washington Post reported http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012204111.html?hpid=topnews in January:


The operation outside Austin presaged what could prove to be one of the most far-reaching and potentially controversial uses of drones: as a new and relatively cheap surveillance tool in domestic law enforcement................."

snip

We'll fabricate something. Change you can believe in!

private prison-industrial complex dontcha know. The swine.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/476/227/


Petitioner operates a 2,000-acre chemical plant consisting of numerous covered buildings, with outdoor manufacturing equipment and piping conduits located between the various buildings exposed to visual observation from the air. Petitioner maintains elaborate security around the perimeter of the complex, barring ground-level public views of the area. When petitioner denied a request by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for an on-site inspection of the plant, EPA did not seek an administrative search warrant, but instead employed a commercial aerial photographer, using a standard precision aerial mapping camera, to take photographs of the facility from various altitudes, all of which were within lawful navigable airspace. Upon becoming aware of the aerial photography, petitioner brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging that EPA's action violated the Fourth Amendment and was beyond its statutory investigative authority. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that EPA's aerial observation did not exceed its investigatory authority and that the aerial photography of petitioner's plant complex without a warrant was not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

Held:

1. The fact that aerial photography by petitioner's competitors might be barred by state trade secrets law is irrelevant to the questions presented in this case. Governments do not generally seek to appropriate trade secrets of the private sector, and the right to be free of appropriation of trade secrets is protected by law. Moreover, state tort law governing unfair competition does not define the limits of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 476 U. S. 231-233.

2. The use of aerial observation and photography is within EPA's statutory authority. When Congress invests an agency such as EPA with enforcement and investigatory authority, it is not necessary to identify explicitly every technique that may be used in the course of executing the statutory mission.


Tell me more...

Police and fire departments have been using RC planes and helicopters for ages.

not the same thing actually.

http://www.officer.com/article/10249126/the-products-of-ingenuity

One department even outfitted a hobbyist's remote-control mini-helicopter with a wireless camera to create an inexpensive yet functional piece of aerial surveillance equipment.

and the remote controlled kind. :D

They're just bigger and more sophisticated than what you see at the RC flying field, but police and firemen are allowed to look at things from the air, and have used RC planes and helicopters for a long time.

Do you have the same problem with bomb disposal robots?

you deserve gainful employment as much as anyone else. :P

...since I don't work with law enforcement in any capacity. I do patents, copyright and trademark stuff, and mostly defense.

So if there is, say, a sniper on a roof, if the police want to get a look at where he is and what he's doing, they need to send up a manned helicopter, because a remote video unit would violate some principle of some sort?

:hi:

Are apples the same as potato chips?

Anywhere that any member of the public can look at something, the police are allowed to look at it too.

And that includes from airplanes and helicopters.

We don't own any for our personal use for whenever we feel like spying on someone.

It's still like comparing apples to potato chips.

Government use of spying aircraft against law abiding residents might be legal but only because the courts are failing to protect our democratic rights.

Get yourself a pilot license, and knock your socks off.

There is a pilot and photographer who used to do a brisk business in my area by flying around, taking pictures of peoples houses, and offering to sell them copies.

If you are going to ban the police from looking at things from the air, then you are going to have to ban everyone else from doing it to. Is that then a civil liberties question?

Every TV and radio station in my area has choppers up looking at the ground every rush hour. They are privately owned. They see you commuting. You want to ban that too?

Was Dow Chemical v. United States.

If you want operators of large industrial complexes to violate environmental laws because there is no practical way to see what they are doing other than from the air, have at it.

In 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wanted to inspect Dow Chemical Company's Midland, Michigan, plant to ensure its compliance with the Clean Air Act. The EPA was attempting to gather information concerning smokestack emissions from two of the factory's power plants. The Dow plant is a 2,000 acre complex that consists of a number of covered buildings and some uncovered outdoor manufacturing areas.

Sorry, but corporate polluters are not getting a free pass from me. Your mileage may vary.

in disaster services... where yes... they'd be INVALUABLE... but I have a sneaky that NOBODY is gonna limit them to flying over a flood zone, for example... or a chemical plant fire.

it would bring new meaning to those signs you sometimes see: "Speed Limit Enforced by Aircraft"

Inexpensive, DIY, heat seeking rockets are just a couple of nerds away.

... local girl went missing and the post wanted to send up some unmanned vehicles with infrared etc.. etc..

They were denied.

The "drone" has to be able to avoid other traffic in the airspace system. In the case of recreational RC aircraft, it is done by flying them in the immediate vicinity of the operator who maintains visual contact with it. That is much harder to do with surveillance drones etc. The cities and agencies that want those kind of toys do not control the airspace, the FAA does. If a drone hits a helo or a plane near and airport, the liability is immense.

The War on Drugs and Prison-Industrial Complex needs fresh meat.