DHS Drones to determine if person is armed and to intercept cell phone signals

The FAA has been resistant to UAV/UAS platforms (not "drones," as drones are fire and forget robots and these are actively guided by people) for quite some time now.

One of their valid concerns is that these things, when they lose electronic contact with their controller, can behave in strange manners, such as climbing to regain signal - that can pose a serious hazard to other aircraft.

In war zones, those of us who fly manned aircraft are very watchful of UAV transponder signals, and do our best to keep good lateral and vertical separation from them.

I would not like to have to fly around them in CONUS, especially not if my aircraft did not have a TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) installed. I would definitely not want them to operate near any airspace with a high density of airline traffic.

Aside from the midair flight risk they pose, these UAV platforms can be equipped with whatever off the shelf technology DHS could imagine. While there are steps that have to be followed, in order to mount equipment on any aircraft - the FAA has certification protocols, after all - many of those steps can be circumvented or shortened when the aircraft falls under "public use." IE, if the government really wants to use it, they can find a way to get it certified.

Without even going into the really high-tech stuff, just think about the things one of these could record on a plain old MX or MTS series camera: your significant other, sunbathing nude on the patio behind the privacy fence; you and your significant other, enjoying a romantic interlude in your hot tub, behind your privacy fence; for the EBR crowd, they could watch and see how many "assault weapons" you take with you to your private range.

These things are a big, hairy deal, people.
 
Last edited:
Lastly, if we want to keep this thread alive, it has to be about FIREARMS
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be directly related to firearms, though it does have to be related to matters of law and/or civil rights. There are certainly some implications here, but any surveillance or action past what law enforcement already does will be a matter for the courts to review.

The technology is not the issue, so much as how it's used.
 
They have had small mini blimp types of them for quite a few years. I saw one in Kansas back in 05 when I was out with my cousin on the family farm. We saw the thing for a moment. A few minutes later there were about 5 Yukons loaded with DEA gong down the road past us at a very high speed. They were raiding a mobile meth lab that was made to look like a travel trailer. (Note they found it abandoned in a thicket of cotton wood trees by the Arkansas river. They found the guy driving the truck that was towing it about 2 miles away at a biker bar.)

I am not going to worry too much about it. I obey the law, and have had zero problems with the government. I do not fear they are going to track my every move, and listen to every word I say. If they did they would die of boredom.
 
I think there's nothing to be alarmed about. After all governments have never lied to the people or abused their authority! :rolleyes:
 
manta49 asks
As for the drones whats the difference in spying etc with a drone rather than a helicopter or aeroplane for example.
Click to expand...

manta, for one thing, I addressed safety issues in an earlier post. Unmanned vehicles can do odd things; plus, pilots have more skin in the game when their butt is actually in the aircraft.

I've heard stories of one contract UAV operator in Iraq taking a quick lunch and flirt with female co-worker break, while he was supposed to be actively monitoring his platform.

But, for another thing, airplanes and helicopters typically fly for 2-5 hours. UAV's typically fly for 12-18 hours.

We could go on, but potential for hazards and for unauthorized surveillance go way up when these things enter the game.
 
I have not confirmed it but it appears that the DHS Drone specs include hard points for hanging ordnance on them. One estimate is that it would take about 8 hours to configure these drones to accept Hellfire Missiles.

Can you imagine if AG Reno had access to an armed predator at Ruby Ridge.
 
I don't know about DHS specs, but Predators normally come with hardpoints, and Reapers come with even more hardpoints.

So it would seem to me that DHS would have to specify that a new airframe be designed and built without them, which would probably cost more than just buying some from the existing line.

IE, by taking no action aside from the basic purchase, they would get Predators with hardpoints.
 
I'm not as much of an anti-government conspiracy theorist as some, but these things in the hands of DHS make me far less comfortable with the White House position that a military drone strike on US citizens on US soil is unlikely, as the best solution for domestic criminals is law enforcement. I won't really care if the drone doing the striking is DHS or Military...

The older folks will probably remember this joke being used as a reference...
Hmmm... I have two coins in my hand. Together they total 55 cents. One of them is not a nickel, what are they? A 50 cent piece, and a nickel. The 50 cent piece is not a nickel you see.

I have two organizations at my command with Drones.. I find it highly unlikely I would ever order a military drone strike inside the US on US Citizens, "where well-established law enforcement authorities" are the legal choice against US citizens. The military is not a law enforcement authority....
.
.
.

But Homeland Security is, suckers!!!
 
Last edited:
I wonder if there has ever been a discussion on the airspace over a persons property.

Say for instance if the drone were hovering only 6 feet off my lawn.
 
I don't know about that. As far as I know a police helicopter or airplane does not need a warrant or even to establish cause for flying over your house and look.

I am certainly not a lawyer, but I would have to assume the ruling by SCOTUS in Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 would apply to drones as well as helicopters.
 
It depends on what sort of advanced optics the drone has. Given the lawsuits from celebrities over tabloid candid shots, an IR camera pointed at your bedroom at Oh Dark Thirty could give the court pause to reconsider.
 
Again, not a lawyer, but the ruling required that someone would not have reason to believe their activities were private. It said

"Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more."

I assume it has something to do with a "reasonable expectations of privacy". In my opinion looking inside a house would fall outside of what is allowed. Whether it be a camera looking through a window or more advanced means. At least I hope they would not be allowed.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/
 
It depends on what sort of advanced optics the drone has. Given the lawsuits from celebrities over tabloid candid shots, an IR camera pointed at your bedroom at Oh Dark Thirty could give the court pause to reconsider.
Click to expand...

Again, UAVs aren't really bringing anything new to the table in that regard. The courts have already ruled on the use of sensors outside the range of human senses (such as near-IR and thermal imagers) without a warrant. There's no reason why existing statues and precedent can't be applied to the sensors on a UAV.

As for the Attorney General's statement regarding using UAVs to target American citizens on American soil, while I recognize the potential for abuse, I sort of see where he's coming from.

We already have policies in place that allow law-enforcement agencies to use lethal force against criminals (think SWAT snipers, for example). Why couldn't those same policies apply to armed drones? It wouldn't make sense, policy-wise, for the AG to tie the government's hands by saying "We would never, ever, under any circumstances use a UAV to target an American citizen within the boundaries of the United States."
 
But Scott, that was not the question he was asked and that is not the question he and the administration finally answered earlier today.

As Holder said in this letter, the question was:

"“Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?”

He answered "No. Why it took this long and why they had to be so evasive in answering is beyond me.
 
This statement was made on Monday, in a letter to Paul Rand:

"Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States."

Then on Wednesday one of the Senators asked for a clarification:

" In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat."

To that, Holder responded "no".

I don't think the "sitting at a cafe" and "didn't pose an imminent threat" specifications were part of the original questioning that prompted Holder's quote from Monday.

Now, if the "not engaged in combat" was part of the question from the start, the only reason I can think of for a delay would be if they needed to have some discussion on what exactly "in combat" would mean in the context of a terrorist in the U.S.
 
In KYLLO v. UNITED STATES ( No. 99-8508 ) I think it can be said that what does and doesn't fall under a fourth amendment protection can be so convoluted as to be almost impossible to determine.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/99-8508

When you think about it, it appears that our bill of rights as guaranteed under the constitution can be subject to reinterpretation under future supreme court rulings and nothing is guaranteed.
 
When you think about it, it appears that our bill of rights as guaranteed under the constitution can be subject to reinterpretation under future supreme court rulings and nothing is guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much the entire Constitution is subject to reinterpretation and change. That's why women can vote and blacks aren't counted as three-fifths of a person when it comes to apportionment in the House of Representatives.
 
This statement was made on Monday, in a letter to Paul Rand:

"Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States."

Then on Wednesday one of the Senators asked for a clarification:

" In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat."

To that, Holder responded "no".

I don't think the "sitting at a cafe" and "didn't pose an imminent threat" specifications were part of the original questioning that prompted Holder's quote from Monday.

Now, if the "not engaged in combat" was part of the question from the start, the only reason I can think of for a delay would be if they needed to have some discussion on what exactly "in combat" would mean in the context of a terrorist in the U.S.
Click to expand...

I don't know all of the history here, but I do know the filibuster had already started by the time Sen. Cruz was asking his questions yesterday.

I cannot imagine any circumstance in which law enforcement or the military could engage with deadly force on US soil in a situation that did not involve immediate and imminent threat. The problem, of course, is that we seem to have expanded the definition of the word "imminent" to include "may at some time in the future become" a threat when dealing with killings over seas. And that does not even start to talk about the "signature" attacks, which are justified by location alone without knowing exactly who it is that is being blown up. I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't want that to be the policy here.

Frankly, I am glad someone is making it an issue, as it should be. BTW, I don't think the president or anyone in government was planning on blowing anyone up, not at all. I am not too worried about drones, I am more concerned with making sure everyone understands the possible impacts of going fast and loose with our natural rights.
 
Kyllo v US actually sets a relatively clear standard, of, in general public use, as to whether or not it would require a warrant. Simply put, imagers/detection devices(FLIR or similar technology in the case of Kyllo) that bypass what would normally constitute privacy are a no go since typically they are not in general public use. This is a relatively clear standard that allows for evolving technology while simultaneously putting restrictions on it's use.
 
"I am more concerned with making sure everyone understands the possible impacts of going fast and loose with our natural rights."

^^^This summarizes nearly my every post^^^! I wish that I could have put it so succinctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top