LAPD Gets Some Hand-Me-Down Drones From Seattle, Promises Discretion 108
After Seattleites objected to the local police department's plan to deploy unmanned aircraft, that plan was withdrawn. Now, it seems, Seattle has found a willing recipient for some of the drones that it no longer has use for: the Los Angeles Police Department. From the linked article: "The Draganflyer X6 aircraft, which resemble small helicopters, are each about 3 feet wide and equipped with a camera, video camera and infrared night-vision capabilities. In making the announcement, however, department officials were at pains to make it clear the LAPD doesn't intend to use the new hardware to keep watch from above over an unsuspecting public. If they're used at all, the remotely controlled aircraft will be called on only for "narrow and prescribed uses" that will be made clear to the public, the statement said."
Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious - how exactly do you imagine this technology could be misused?
Follow someone around? Pretty sure cops already do that ...
What else is there?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious - how exactly do you imagine this technology could be misused?
If you can't imagine the misuse of this tech, you have a VERY poor imagination.
Re: (Score:3)
You still didn't answer his question...
I can think of one thing. These devices have night vision capabilities and can look into windows where the lights are out turning them into glorified peeping Toms. There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces but when they start looking into windows there IS an expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
But not to near-infrared. Many 'night vision cameras' are actually NIR cameras with a lot of very bright NIR LEDs - they can be made more powerful for a given size than cost than visible-light LEDs. I don't know if the drones use NIR cameras, but if they don't there's no reason they couldn't.
That said, only copter-drones can hover outside a window, and their noise level isn't exactly stealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Just buy some invisible IR light units, and shine them into the camera eyes of any spying device. Placed outside on the window ledge with a slight up angle, they will not illuminate anything on the ground, but anyone who wants to peer into your widows with night vision (NV) will find the bright IR lamps will desense their NV.
These are often used to hinder attacking enemies with NV goggles, although this has developed into a spy vs counter spy among the various national forces that use NV.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice idea, but I think it may backfire. Your IR-window is going to be shining bright for blocks around, which effectively flags you as someone trying to hide and thus potentially Up To No Good. You'd just single yourself out for the special spying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
that is why I directed it upwards, to minimize street level light.
If it gets popular, so many will have them....
Re: (Score:2)
The way to do it would be to manufacture tacky Christmas window decorations with a cheerful santa figure in red and white LEDs - and NIR super-brights in between them. Then sell them cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, hidden in plain sight...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Given their history, I can easily imagine all sorts of spying and they'll somehow manage to kill a dog with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Given their history, I can easily imagine all sorts of spying and they'll somehow manage to kill a dog with it.
And then claim that there was a "clear and imminent danger to the drone" when it gets reported.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the dog will wag menacingly at it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I like how the LAPD guns down innocent people when scary events make them twitchy. spray enough bullets around, and you'll get a bad person sometimes, but it's guarenteed you'll instill fear and respect in the populace every time.
Re: (Score:1)
ObSouth Park (Score:2)
Figures... (Score:3)
It figures it'd be the LAPD. What other police force on the west coast would hunger for this kind of invasiveness?
Re: (Score:3)
Now, given the LAPD's storied and honorable history, they are definitely on the list of people who should never be given something that requires a promise of discretion; because t
Re:Figures... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, LAPD is probably the biggest, I'll give you that. But if you follow the news stories, you'd have to conclude that LAPD is also the most corrupt police force in California, or at least in the top 5. It has a history of lieing extensively and getting caught later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and precisely because it's so large.
The larger the organization the more and larger nooks and crannies to hide in and the greater the resources to "defend" (cover up) incidents. Far more ability/resources to do harm, far more opportunities to do harm, far more reward from doing harm, far more ability to get lost in the woodwork and get away with it. The PD isn't unique; the rest of Los Angeles's governmental departments are much the same. From the school district, to the building codes, to street ma
Re: (Score:2)
The Hampton, FL [loweringthebar.net], for instance, is less of a town with a corrupt police department, and more of a corrupt police department with some residents. You know you have a problem if the Florida legislature decides that your town is too corrupt to survive and goes about abolishing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like LAPD has a history of being incompetent at being corrupt. They get caught at it.
It's just possible that "the most corrupt police force in CA" is so skilled at corruption that everyone thinks they're just fine as police go....
Re:Figures... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen 4 X 8 foot panels of plywood flying around a home-remodeling site across the street due to the helicopter down-draft. And this was on a night with no major crimes. That is, it was "just for practice." Never mind that the public, whom they are supposed to protect and to serve, are being awakened for 2-3 hours in the middle of the night, and suffer property damage.
Having personally observed the above behavior, it's essentially guaranteed that TFA's drones will be used in an escalating series of invasive methods – especially ones that the law does not yet specifically prohibit.
LAPD have long been known to be excessively power-hungry, abusive, racist, and eager to use excessive force. These drones are just another tool to enable their continuing subjugation of the citizenry.
Numbers... (Score:5, Interesting)
It figures it'd be the LAPD. What other police force on the west coast would hunger for this kind of invasiveness?
There is nothing on the west coast like the LAPD.
With 10,023 officers and 2,879 civilian staff, it is the third-largest local law enforcement agency in the United States, after the New York City Police Department and the Chicago Police Department. The department serves an area of 498 square miles (1,290 km2) and a population of 3,792,621 people as of the 2010 Census.
Los Angeles Police Department [wikipedia.org]
LAPD acquires two drones, to consider employing them for 'narrow' use [nydailynews.com]
The X6 is a spy drone with wireless video and still cameras (in hi-def, infra-red and 0 lux flavors) that can fly autonomously, or as a remote-controlled bot. It has 11 sensors (including gyros, accelerometers, barometers, magnetometers and GPS) and is so easy to pilot, a Wii gamer could do it. Now it will be used by the Ontario Provincial Police and the Saskatoon Police to patrol crime scenes and help gather evidence.
The Draganflyer X6 UAV Police Edition [gizmodo.com]
[March 2009]
Re: (Score:2)
Their description of intent is vague, but I can imagine it being flown over cities with the TIR cameras running to look for very hot buildings - something police already do with helicopters, drones would just make it cheaper. A very hot building usually means someone is growing pot in there.
Usually, anyway. There have been a few incidents of people with things like tropical greenhouses getting their doors smashed down and a police squad running in with guns drawn. We had one in the UK where a family's heate
Re:Figures... (Score:4)
It figures it'd be the LAPD. What other police force on the west coast would hunger for this kind of invasiveness?
Uh, ALL the rest of them? And not limited to the west coast (or the USA, for that matter)
Re: (Score:1)
The LAPD needs to keep busy tracking their competition for drug smuggling. They normally have heliocopters in the air, so this can keep it cheaper and probably minimize the labor involved chasing the normal murders at night.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually not ok with police chasing someone into an accident. The police, at least in the city where drones would be more likely to be used, have something more valuable: Multiple cars in different locations, and a dispatcher coordinating the location of the perp and engaging units in the perp's path. At least some (probably all) police departments have rules of engagement regarding chases which tend to get reviewed and strengthened after a bad crash. Consider the movie scenario of a lone unit pursu
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad they might no't be able to use them (Score:5, Informative)
The US House of Representatives passed H.R. 4660 yesterday, Rep,. Rush Holt (D-N.J) added a couple of amendments to this bill which prohibit local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies from purchasing or using unmanned aircraft based on privacy concerns....
So the next time a quad copter in the hands of a law enforcement agency could have potentially found a lost hiker, or monitored a wildfire etc.. I guess you're out of luck....
Re: (Score:3)
Why do I think "narrow and prescribed uses" does not mean "find a lost hiker". It has been my experience that plenty of aircraft are in the sky when there is a wildfire. I don't see why the police department would need to add more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too bad they might no't be able to use them (Score:5, Interesting)
The US House of Representatives passed H.R. 4660 yesterday, ... prohibit local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies from purchasing or using unmanned aircraft based on privacy concerns....So the next time a quad copter in the hands of a law enforcement agency could have potentially found a lost hiker, or monitored a wildfire etc.. I guess you're out of luck....
Depends on where you live, I suppose.
Here in the heart of the Rocky Mountains our search and rescue organizations are separate from law enforcement, covered under the department of public safety. Basically search and rescue is a sibling organization to the county sheriff offices.
I agree with the representative; I do not want the local LEOs to use drones for just about any reason. But I don't mind other governmental agencies, like search and rescue, fire departments, the department of wildlife resources, and other non-LEO organizations, using them for public good.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, if you want the things used for law enforcement, I suppose you are (by design) out of luck for the moment; but pretending that preventing cops from having them is j
Re: (Score:2)
We do have public safety entities that aren't also branches of law enforcement, you know... Fire departments the National Forest Service, and similar, are often the ones interested in wildfires; and various flavors of park rangers (some of which do have law enforcement functions, some who don't) and similar usually care about lost hikers.
It's funny that you mention that sort of thing, because here in California firefighters were getting shot at for spying on people's property because they got involved in narcing to law enforcement. A stop was put to that, now they're back to just fighting fires. The REACT medi-heli has also been used for just surveying, although they usually hire another chopper for that since one of their dumbest, most corrupt cops broke the last one. Mostly they're too busy actually dealing with major collisions around he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Too bad they might no't be able to use them (Score:5, Funny)
I disagree with your assessment that law enforcement, specifically LAPD, are human.
Re: (Score:2)
What you need is something like the UK's IPCC - their job is to investigate complaints against the police. They have the powers to do so properly, and they are not themselves part of the police.
Whereas in the US, if you wish to make a complaint against your local police department, it will be investigated by... your local police department. If you wish to make a complaint about a specific officer, it'll likely be investigated by another officer in the same department and good friend of the accused. There's
Re: (Score:2)
We have numerous agencies in the US to investigate complaints against the Police. It's just as effective as the UK's IPCC, meaning not that effective. Their main job is to keep citizens quiet by pretending to do something. In the most obvious and heinous criminal acts by police they may take some action, but that's not even true with the IPCC who has a record of never [opendemocracy.net] convicting an officer.
It's kind of like arguing that the US needs a Parliament to manage the NSA like they do in the UK with the GCHQ.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when hiking the rugged trails of LA, it's so easy to get lost.
Generally, in places where hikers get lost, they have rescue people who are not law enforcement who can use a quad copter all they want.
Difference between drones and RC aircraft (Score:5, Informative)
There is still generally a big difference between drones and RC aircraft.
RC aircraft do include many of the quadcopters and traditional devices that are controlled by line-of-sight from a controlling box. The key difference is that RC aircraft are not fully autonomous.
Drones are the ones that can fly with autonomy, be programmed with routes, and otherwise do things independently from the radio controller.
These specific devices feature GPS-driven autopilot, dynamic routing, and automated photography systems. The website also lists some auto-drop functionality to deliver small packages to GPS coordinates. They can fly autonomously to GPS locations, take actions, fly elsewhere, take actions, then fly home.
While they do offer a regular controller box and can operate as normal RC aircraft, they are also GPS-drivable, programmably autonomous, and capable of fully automated flight and fully automated recording, so these Dragonflyer X6 devices very firmly fall into the 'drone' category.
Re: (Score:2)
The boundry isn't entirely clear. Some people consider the drones as any aircraft that is operated remotely without line of sight - ie, has a camera on board providing real-time visual back to the operator.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still generally a big difference between drones and RC aircraft.
[...]
Drones are the ones that can fly with autonomy, be programmed with routes, and otherwise do things independently from the radio controller.
I agree with you, but you should know that the dictionary does not. Anything which can be controlled without a person in it is a drone. Autonomy is not required. Sure, I think it should be, but it ain't.
Re: (Score:2)
Right... this is the latest in a very long history: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-deputy-trial-20140529-story.html
I'll be so glad to be out of LA in a couple of weeks.
Precedent (Score:2)
If they can find a jurisdiction that will tolerate or embrace this activity, they can hold it up as an example in other places to justify the adoption.
Once the movement reaches a critical threshold, it will be easy to force the "upgrade" even on comparatively hostile populations.
Our freedoms fall like dominoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! Funny how such things change over time; I don't believe a word of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to play a bit of Devil's advocate here since I don't believe police departments need this capability but here we go...
I know it may be difficult for some here but harken back to 9/11 when it was found that capability the government possessed was not used or was brought in too late. There are whole sections in the 9/11 Commission Report on that very thing. Government employees all across the board were flayed alive for that. LA is a big city which makes it a ripe target and if it is found that the
Re: (Score:2)
you can't have 100% security and 100% liberty yet that is what the American public expects.
I don't. I mean, I really don't expect the security. Of course, maybe I'll turn into a clingy, half-crazed lunatic begging for Big Brother to protect me when trouble actually strikes.
Right now, though, all I see is liberty/freedom/privacy draining away for what would *seem* to be marginal (or at least unproven) gains in security.
Hell, what do I know. I kinda like where I live, in the good ol' U.S. of A. Everything's great viewed from the sofa or my
Re: (Score:1)
LAPD Integrity (Score:5, Informative)
department officials were at pains to make it clear the LAPD doesn't intend to use the new hardware to keep watch from above over an unsuspecting public.
Ahh, well that completely sets my mind at ease. How could anyone doubt the integrity of the LAPD [wikipedia.org]?
Less of two evils (Score:3)
a. that's a 35K copter with NO GPS (the older models didn;t have it, though this could be retro fitted) and if upgraded, has hold position and that's it.
b. that 35K copter can be trumped by a @2K DJI phantom setup--if LAPD paid over 10K for that, I say it's a complete RIP OFF.
c. LA is a urban canyon in most places, GPS and RF will likely be a question--so the use will likely be limited.
d. does LAPD have a COA?
Will the LAPD arrest and fine themselves? (Score:4, Interesting)
As per the FAA website:
Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
http://www.faa.gov/news/update... [faa.gov]
Myth #3: Commercial UAS operations are a “gray area” in FAA regulations.
Fact—There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval. Private sector (civil) users can obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight demonstrations. Commercial UAS operations are limited and require the operator to have certified aircraft and pilots, as well as operating approval. To date, only two UAS models (the Scan Eagle and Aerovironment’s Puma) have been certified, and they can only fly in the Arctic. Public entities (federal, state and local governments, and public universities) may apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA)
Re:Will the LAPD arrest and fine themselves? (Score:5, Interesting)
As per the FAA website:
As much as the FAA would love to regulate model aircraft, the guidelines generally don't apply. When they recently tried to enforce the rules (suing because a radio controlled meter-long craft was not piloted by an FAA-certified pilot) they were challenged in court - and lost.
There has been ONE case where the FAA actually tried to sue a model aircraft pilot in the past.
It is still going through the appeals process, but it doesn't look good for the FAA. It lost the case in a summary judgement that completely emasculated the FAA's claims on regulating model aircraft.
The judge basically reviewed the regulations and the definitions. None of the FAA policies appear directed at these small craft. All the regulations the judge found were discussing large, manned craft, or large unmanned craft, or large experimental aircraft. The law they rely on for their authority are based on large craft, and the current actual regulation for the smaller model aircraft is a simple safety guideline asking (not requiring under law) that certain polite behavior be followed, such as flying away from airports and under certain heights.
The judge found in the summary judgement that the FAA rules are regulations are built around certified pilots with so many hours in flight school, filing flight plans to ensure the craft do not interfere with military and commercial airlines, and tend to refer to large aircraft requiring airports and runways and high altitudes ... and they say nothing specific about model craft.
And of course, the judge noted, all the FAA guidelines and requirements mandated that the person operating a little 2-stick remote control have an FAA license with mandatory in-air flight time, noting it as being a nonsensical requirement for model aircraft. The summary judgement had little gems like calling the FAA guidelines "incompatible with the law", not "binding upon the general public",
The trial court judge also ruled that FAA policy notices are not binding law generally. As much as the FAA keeps claiming on their publications and policies that their word is the absolute law, the judge felt it was not. In part, any government mandated official policy has a bunch of requirements about comment periods, minimum time between posting and effectiveness, etc., and the FAA does not follow the legal requirements. It may be policy internally within the FAA, and the FAA can challenge FAA-certified pilots with violations that suspend their license, but it doesn't look the FAA currently has any jurisdiction on model pilots. Of course, as mentioned, appeal is pending, but it is improbable to succeed.
I cannot, in any way, fathom the appeal courts accepting that every person flying a model aircraft must have an FAA-issued pilots license, file flight plans for their model aircraft, notify ground control at the inception of flight, maintain radio contact with FAA systems, and so on. Every little kid with a little battery-powered glider would be facing enormous fines, payable to the FAA's general fund. There is no way that is happening.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it will wind up somewhere in between "total regulation" and "total free for all". the FAA does NOT require that everyone putting something into the air have a license (kites and free balloons in Part 103, for instance).
And you'll have to admit there is a significant qualitative difference between "bob and jane RC hobby flyer" with a 2 stick controller at the local park and an industrial entity (e.g. LAPD) flying a larger unit beyond line of sight.
The classic way that the FAA has dealt with this kin
hosted PTZ cameras (Score:1)
Helicopters (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Daily they scan the skies. I live in LA. We call them ghetto birds.
Hand-me-downs? (Score:1)
"Pssst, you, copper, hear you're in the market for used skybots..."
Dont worry, its the LAPD (Score:1)
Dont worry guys, its the LAPD. These guys keep their word.
I feel safer already.
But LAPD has plenty of experience with military (Score:5, Interesting)
At what point did the LAPD cease to be a police organization and become a military one (owing allegiance to the Mayor and city of Los Angeles instead of the US federal government)? They use military hardware and tactics. In some instances, I can understand the need; now that criminals are using hardened installations, body armor, automatic/paramilitary weapons, there needs to be a capacity for law enforcement to respond in kind. What I find lacking is the oversight. As nearly as I can determine, the only thing reining in the private paramilitary organization created by (now retired) police chief Daryl Gates is often civilians with cell-phone cameras.
LAPD - "To Protect and Serve" has seemingly be replaced with "We'll treat you like a King".
Re: (Score:1)
"We'll treat you like a King".
Not like a King, like King.
Re: (Score:1)
A: Because it breaks the flow of a message. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: A: Because it breaks the flow of a message. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At what point did the LAPD cease to be a police organization and become a military one (owing allegiance to the Mayor and city of Los Angeles instead of the US federal government)? They use military hardware and tactics.
At the same point at which the government ceased serving the people and started working for the moneyed interests. You know, before there was an LAPD. It's only become more noticeable.
I believe there is such a need. (Score:1)
Narrow, Prescribed Uses (Score:3, Insightful)
Like general surveillance over an unsuspecting public.
Toys (Score:2)
Discretion? Yeah, right (Score:4, Interesting)
The only accurate way to talk about "discretion" when talking about the LAPD (or indeed any major police department and nearly every smaller one) is along with the phrase "abuse of".
Da fuck? (Score:2)