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

Something else that should be considered if the technology is reliable enough for the drone to be weaponized over populated areas.

When the drones are over areas of Pakistan I don't think american citizens are concerned (they should be) whether or not a drone could misfire on an unintended target , Experience interference that could disable it causing it to crash on a populated area while armed with weapons or hacked and become a danger in that respect.

If I am not mistaken a college tech class was able to hack a government drone (they were asked to see if it could be done) and landed it. The Iranians have hacked US drones.

So in that respect the idea that a drone would somehow be a magic bullet for use against a human target in anykind of populated area where US civilians could be accidentally injured or killed would not be the wisest idea.

I can see however where a drone could be used to hit a target like the Waco compound. Especially hard targets like the Waco records vault. Which was annihilated using some form of penetrating explosive device.

Or at a location like Ruby Ridge where the target was isolated from the general public.

These could also be hit however by manned craft using Joint direct attack munitions. What is good about the Drone is that if there were an "un" intended accident that resulted in the deaths of individuals other than the primary target it could always be blamed on a glitch and not on human error.
 
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.
 
manta49 said:
As for the drones whats the difference in spying etc with a drone rather than a helicopter or aeroplane for example.
Click to expand...

There are two sides to the difference. You can argue they are the two sides of the same coin or that the two are substativly different. But both involve the level of dehumanization and anonymity the remotely operated vehicles bring to the scene compared to the days when a Greek warrior had to physically slice the chest of his opponent on the battlefield. Both the assailant role and the victim role - if we assume those are the roles - perceive their roles differently if there's close contact than they do if it's remote and clinically isolated like it is with a drone.

Google "did we just kill a kid" to get some discussions.
 
Last edited:
I guess it all comes down to the question: How much faith will you have in the Government?
Click to expand...

There seems to be a lot going on in this administration that causes alarm to citizens. Is it because of the internet that people are now reading more about these drones and surveillance etc, what about when they started putting surveillance cameras at intersections to watch traffic. Haven't we been under surveillance for sometime already ?
As far as faith in our government, is it a lack of faith that is causing the mass gun buying that is going on ? It seems everyone wants a gun lately. With the recent purchases by the DHS, guns, ammo, armored vehicles, drones etc. is there trust in DHS ? Are they a threat to the citizens rights and safety ? Where is all this going or what is it leading up to ?
There is a lot of questions about what is going on these days, does anyone have answers ?
 
rebs said:
There are two sides to the difference. You can argue they are the two sides of the same coin or that the two are substativly different. But both involve the level of dehumanization and anonymity the remotely operated vehicles bring to the scene compared to the days when a Greek warrior had to physically slice the chest of his opponent on the battlefield. Both the assailant role and the victim role - if we assume those are the roles - perceive their roles differently if there's close contact than they do if it's remote and clinically isolated like it is with a drone.

Google "did we just kill a kid" to get some discussions.
Click to expand...

I understand. I do not support arming domestic drones with missiles or machine guns, just as I do not support arming police helicopters with missiles or machine guns. Police power, government power is something we always need to keep a close eye on. I just don't have a problem with drones being used in the same way police helicopters are today. I don't have a problem with a drone having a camera or other device that might be able to identify if a person is carrying a rifle or not. Maybe my civil libertarian ideas are softening as I get older or something. As long as they are not poking around where I have some expectation of privacy I really don't care. As long as some computer operator miles away is not given the power to kill me I think I can live with drones.
 
I am not allowed to discuss capabilities and limitations, per se, in this kind of forum.

However, those of you who think drones are no big deal should do some google searching on current multi-spectrum camera technology, and then decide whether you think giving such things a lookdown angle into your property is such a hot idea.

Said the ISR guy...
 
However, those of you who think drones are no big deal should do some google searching on current multi-spectrum camera technology, and then decide whether you think giving such things a lookdown angle into your property is such a hot idea.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the capabilities as well. But the fancy sensors don't mean that we need new laws to govern UAV use. If it wouldn't be legal on a manned airplane without a warrant, it's not legal on a UAV without a warrant.
 
Can't a multi-spectrum camera or all of these fancy devices be placed in a pod on the front of a manned helicopter? Which of these camera/detection devices are only available on drones and not on manned aircraft?

**I found my answer, the multi-spectrum cams are already attached to helicopters. I understand they are being used to inspect power lines****
 
But if the argument is that a pilot in any old plane or helicopter could see a thing, and therefore there is no expectation of privacy, that's a bit different (don't you think) from saying that since a spy satellite that can count troops in formation from fifty miles away can see the thing...

If that argument is inherently different, then now we are talking degrees of difference.

Those degrees may matter.

Should you not expect privacy if you can't hear or see the helicopter or plane?

Note that courts have already ruled against police who wanted to be allowed warrantless use of infrared to watch people in their homes at night. If it couldn't be seen by unaided sight, then it should have an expectation of privacy, I believe was the logic behind those rulings.
 
I agree it certainly brings up some new points to be argued in the courts. The sat question is an interesting one, google posts pictures of my house and backyard on the internet for the world to see. I would assume, then, that my expectation of privacy in that space is gone. I certainly do not want the police, or anyone else for that matter, using any technology to look through my walls or closed windows to observe.

I watched in interesting discussion about the expectation of privacy standard and how it changes as society changes. The person being interviewed is the head of the rather liberal 9th circuit. It is long, but I found it interesting. It does not address the drone question specifically, so don't look for that answer. His point was that as a society or as an individual I allow anyone access to my "private" information I have then also, legally, allowed the government to observe this information without a warrant. I must admit, I am not at all comfortable with that standard. The interview also goes into other legal questions I found interesting, but the privacy discussion can be found at
25:50.Also, to try and keep on the topic of the forum, there is a discussion of the second amendment at 35:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUYpBqLVe7U
 
Last edited:
But if the argument is that a pilot in any old plane or helicopter could see a thing, and therefore there is no expectation of privacy, that's a bit different (don't you think) from saying that since a spy satellite that can count troops in formation from fifty miles away can see the thing...
Click to expand...

I think we all agree that use of technology to see what cannot normally be seen, and thus violating an expectation of privacy is bad. However, the argument being made is not that a pilot could or could not see something with an unaided eye, but that it makes no difference whether a pilot or observer sees something with surveillance technology whether that technology is mounted on a traditional aircraft or a UAV. Whether it's mounted on a traditional aircraft or UAV does not change the legality of the use of the technology, or the standards with which expectation of privacy are determined. There does seem to be some divergence in the opinions of what constitutes an expectation of privacy, however, that does not change the core issue that any surveillance system that can be mounted on a UAV can also be mounted on traditional aircraft, and that demonstrating the probability of misuse goes up or down based on type of aircraft is tenuous at best. As such, UAVs are not the issue, it's the potential misuse of a fancy camera/imaging device that is the issue.
 
Privacy is one facet, and it's certainly a very great concern, but we're talking about giving drone strike legality to agencies that have trouble serving warrants to the right address,killing pets and sometimes innocent people. Imagine what damage a mistake with a drone armed with a Hellfire missile would cause!

Oops, wrong address!
 
Last edited:
sigcurious, when I was active duty Navy, and we first started putting cameras on non-TARPS birds, there were a lot of restrictions as to how we could conduct training.

In a nutshell, we could not look outside dedicated training areas, where all vehicles and personnel would be part of the exercise. There were huge concerns about violations of privacy if we, for example, decided to practice a vehicle follow with our gear on what turned out to be a private citizen just out for a (perfectly lawful) drive on base.

Personally, I agreed with that philosophy, and have not been thrilled to see the government (under both GW Bush and Barack Obama) chip away at the concept of what privacy we should enjoy.

Cameras today are much better than they were ten years ago, so if anything our concerns about invasion of privacy should be that much greater. Unfortunately, we as a society have become so accustomed to Big Brother watching us that we tend to shrug it off as normal.

Ask Glenn E Meyer about the famous psychological experiment involving the dog, the cage, and electric shocks (learned helplessness); then, ask yourself how we differ from the poor dog.

As far as the privacy issue goes, you are correct - it is the sensor gear, and not the UAV. However, the UAV does create a completely different set of safety issues, as previously noted by me and others.

First, there is the safety of flight issue for aircraft operating in vicinity of UAVs. Trust me on this, but pilots who have experience operating around UAVs really do not like operating around UAVs. (I am one of those pilots.)

Second, there is the issue of the risks and decisions people are willing to make, from the command and control end, when they are at a safe, video-game like remove from the action.

This is a big deal. It disturbs me how members here are blowing it off.
 
I can't understand the continual comparison between a Predator and the ubiquotous Bell JetRanger police copter.

Issues of loiter time, avialability, command and control, visibility, and deployment abound on that one.

Was there ever any validity to the rumor that the BATFE wanted to buy OV-10 Broncos in 1995?

To me, this is very reminiscent of that.

I feel like you can make the cause for Predators to be used by CBP along the Mexican border or by ICE in the Caribbean, but that's about it.
 
SPEMack618, I agree with you in all particulars, and I'd add that patrolling some of the Canadian border might also be reasonable use for Predators.

Inland United States? Not so much.

As far as the OV-10s go, you'd be surprised... I know one guy I used to work with who left our company to go fly mosquito control at home (he's in coastal GA). The state uses an OV-10 they acquired from military surplus as the mosquito sprayer...

Funnier than that (to me, at least) was the AH-1 Cobra in Fire Department livery that used to sit outside base ops at Tallahassee Regional. What a Fire Department will do with a disarmed Cobra is beyond me, but it was still there in 2008, last time I flew out of Tallahassee.
 
I accept there are technical safety issues with UAVs, however like any other machine these issues are entirely separate from issues surrounding their intended or possible use, in this case surveillance legal or otherwise.

Perhaps one reason I do not find them objectionable is because I limited my response to the known factors and not the possible. The agency that has the predators is CBP, which as both MLeake and SPEMack noted, border use could be deemed reasonable.
 
MLeake said:
As far as the OV-10s go, you'd be surprised... I know one guy I used to work with who left our company to go fly mosquito control at home (he's in coastal GA). The state uses an OV-10 they acquired from military surplus as the mosquito sprayer...
Click to expand...

That's cool. Dating a girl who resides on SSI, I would support the activation of a sprayer equipped C-123 to fight the bugs down there. Militarization of civil aviation be darned!

And the FD Cobra, pretty neat. I saw a California FD with an H-60 of some variant, referred to as a "Firehawk" in the Rose Parada once.

Good point in regards to the Canadian Border too, I forget how pourous it is too.

But from what I recall, the Broncos were being purchased with assorted sensors, including FLIR, which in and of itself is relatively harmless I suppose, but also other sensor packages too.
 
How do celebrities sue tabloids for topless photos taken in their backyard? If Google Earth is capable of posting up that photo of their backyard?

Why would our government want to be held to a lesser standard than the National Enquirer?
 
I that it's pretty well established in law that celebrities don't have the same expectation of privacy as regular, non-famous people. They have a very hard time suing tabloids for anything.

But we digress...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top