Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Drones Entered the FBI's Spying Toolkit

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the eye-in-the-sky dept.

United States 39

Jason Koebler writes The FBI has had an eager eye on surveillance drones since first experimenting with remote control airplanes in 1995. But budget cuts nearly ended the Bureau's unmanned machinations in 2010, and it took a dedicated push aimed at making drones "a tool the FBI cannot do without" to cement their place in the FBI's surveillance toolkit. The near termination—and subsequent expansion—of the FBI's drone program over the past four years is chronicled in hundreds of heavily-redacted pages released under a lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over the past several months.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Drones are cool (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47675541)

Everybody should have one

Ides of August (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675555)

Beware. For tolls for thee.

Dan from Oakland

Re:Ides of August (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675581)

Affirmative action cow;

s'got real employment now.

You'll never get rich,

by being a bitch;

affirmative action cow. ... Cow! ... ... COW!

Re:Ides of August (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675813)

How now black cow.

Re:Ides of August (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675643)

The Ides of August is the 13th day of August. The Ides falls on the 15th day only in March, May, July, and October.

Re:Ides of August (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675713)

This is a common misconception, that the ide falls on any particular day at all.

Re:Ides of August (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675749)

It's a common misconception that words mean anything at all monkey screen door pencil six train check box handle pizza hat.

Re:Ides of August (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675895)

Remember when the words were new
They carried a meaning, a feeling so true
I'm looking for a long romance
Not a picture of passion or one time chance

No more words
You're telling me you love me while you're looking away
No more words, no more words
And no more promises of love

Uh, they fucking watched Speed Racer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675571)

Seriously, if some dumb epileptic Japanese Kid can have one, why wouldn't the FBI do it?

They're still working out how to safely keep a monkey in the trunk of a car. It's been a bit elusive.

Re:Uh, they fucking watched Speed Racer? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 2 months ago | (#47679771)

They're still working out how to safely keep a monkey in the trunk of a car.

FTA:

"... folks in this division was looking ..."

Chief - Video Surveillance Unit

Why would they want to keep the Video Surveillance Unit Chief in a trunk? Come to think of it, forget I asked.

Proves their stupidity (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about 3 months ago | (#47675647)

But budget cuts nearly ended the Bureau's unmanned machinations in 2010

Because using a small, cheap, high-velocity, can-move-in-3D, expendable drone is more expensive than using more agents?

Re:Proves their stupidity (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 3 months ago | (#47676179)

Because using a small, cheap, high-velocity, can-move-in-3D, expendable drone is more expensive than using more agents?

Federal agencies don't get a budget that consists of "here's a pile of money, have fun spending it".

They get a budget with line items for specific things. Like agent payroll. Or drone aircraft.

Congress drawing a line through the "drone aircraft" line item is a budget cut....

Though it's more likely that they asked for $XXX extra to pay for some drones plus staff to operate same, were told "No, we can't give you that much extra", and described it as a "budget cut" (or do you not remember the period of "budget cutting" a couple decades back which consisted of not giving various agencies as much MORE money this year as they had expected to get, but still giving them more than last year (and more than inflation)? Those were "budget cuts" as defined in Washington....

Re:Proves their stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47687053)

This is the best comment ever!

Re:Proves their stupidity (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 3 months ago | (#47676327)

Or *gasp* manned helicopters

Re:Proves their stupidity (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 2 months ago | (#47679779)

"Because using a small, cheap, high-velocity, can-move-in-3D, expendable drone is more expensive than using more agents?"

To the agents it is, yes :-)

They don't "need" drones (5, Interesting)

s.petry (762400) | about 3 months ago | (#47675667)

If FBI agents want a hobby great, let them pay for it out of their own pockets. Quad copters are not that expensive, and off of the tax payers dime they can do what ever they want. Watch porn, go to the bar, fly kites, or fly drones.

On the tax payers dollar, there is absolutely nothing for a drone to do that manpower can't do better.

The FBI's job is to investigate federal crimes and arrest suspects of those crimes. Can they covertly listen in to conversations with a drone? Can they covertly film better with drones? Can they make arrests with drones? No to all of those things. The only thing they can possibly do with a drone is survey a bust location with a drone, and if a cop does not already know the bust location they are not good cops. The "bad guy would have gotten away if we didn't drone him" are impossible scenarios that don't happen.

With the lack of arrests and prosecution the FBI has shown, I simply distrust the agency. I'm sure there are great agents working there that want to do the right thing, but the executive side shuts down real criminal investigations. The concocted "terrorist" attacks that the agency propagated to get additional funding plays a part in that.

I'm not against some of the drone technology in the Military. As a veteran I know first hand that the Military has to deal with situations that are based on 2nd hand or out of date intelligence. This makes for unknown scenarios and a simple surveillance drone can turn the tide of an encounter. Their job is to handle well armed well trained military units of other countries. They are trained to watch out for civilians and try not to harm them, but civilians are the secondary concern of a soldier.

Law enforcement, including the FBI, is not the military. The jobs are totally different, and the expectations are totally different. The Police's job is to protect and serve the public first. If an "unknown gang" has "unknown weapons" then the police have failed miserably at their jobs. That's not a dig on the individual officers, that's a dig at their management who sends them out to do the wrong jobs. Speed traps for example piss off the public and serve primarily to obtain revenue (which is in addition to what we pay for in taxes). It takes police off of patrols and basically turns them into thugs (we all know about the quotas, don't bother trying to bullshit us). If police were visible, patrolling the streets, and actually talking to members of the community, they would have been tipped off about that "unknown gang" long before there were problems.

Re:They don't "need" drones (2)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | about 3 months ago | (#47675679)

Where've you been? Obviously you didn't get the memo. FBI needs to tech-up. And what do you think the NSA is all about? Tech trumps everything, and makes every job easier and more effective. That's the pitch, anyway. You must not work in the tech industry, or at least not anywhere that makes contact with marketing at any point...

Re:They don't "need" drones (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 3 months ago | (#47675693)

I got the memo and laughed at it, and of course cry a bit every time someone believes the bullshit.

Re:They don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47682971)

With all the publicly available research on how surveillance destroys trust and privacy and increases stress overall, I still can't believe we are buying into this mindset. The only place which was left unsurveilled was the oceans, and now private and public companies alike are having talks of doing that as well. A world where everything is recorded and layers of secrecy to manage it, we really are preparing ourselves for a massive war aren't we? It's not like we're all going to evolve to not require trust, it's how we learn, we're truly headed for the Idiocracy movie where we're going to simply end up with a population of conformity and shunned originality. It's terrible, we got so stuck on whether we could I think we forgot to ask whether we should. This is what we get for declaring war on fear, I mean it, we literally declared war on fear itself. Think about that one more time and see if the world is going somewhere sane or not.

Re:They don't "need" drones (1)

hooiberg (1789158) | about 3 months ago | (#47675959)

Well, technology makes a lot of work better and easier. You only have to be very selective in what tech you adopt, and what tech you redirect to the dumpster. But trying a bit with new things is alwys a good idea, otherwise you never discover new useful stuff. Just as programmers should try new editors, from time to time. :-)

Classic limited thiking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675809)

I can't resist commenting on a so obviously stupid posting. Drones vs human agents are a false dichotomy. Drones are of course a tool for human agents to extend their sensory range. In words of a single syllable drones allow one to extend the range of one's vision, hearing and perhaps even the ability to track people as well as vehicles.

Classic selective reading, or idiocy (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 3 months ago | (#47675859)

I can't resist on pointing out your failure to read. or Perhaps the explanations of their jobs and examples given were not specific enough? Here ya go then.

A human can plant a device in the right place at the right time to get audio/video when needed. Even better, once planted they can leave the scene. They can crawl through air ducts and sewers if needed, and even though you may have to pay for the laundry it's possible. Humans can also retrieve those devices when the mission is done. A human can adapt to a situation, fake a heart attack if a distraction is needed, and do all kinds of things on a whim that don't relate to blowing things up or firing bullets into bad guys. Pretty often, you prefer criminals to be alive. And one human can do all of those things without too much difficulty.

A drone can only get to locations where enough air space exists, unless you are talking about drones that currently only exist in movies. The smallest REAL "spy" drones can't fly in a breeze very well, and can't look like a screw in a wall socket after they land. You could get a different drone to walk around, but a step limits their functionality unless you have a very large drone. A drone makes noise, if you are close enough to listen in to a conversation the bad guy can most likely hear the drone. A drone has a higher chance of failure which risks missions, a gust of wind is all it takes to blow cover. They are much larger than a micro camera or microphone therefor easier for bad guys to spot. Of course you could get fleets of drones which replace several of the things a human can do, but you really are not doing anything better or smarter.

So your claim of "tools" to make humans better is simply delusional bullshit (or sock puppetry).

Re:Classic selective reading, or idiocy (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 3 months ago | (#47676355)

so if the FBI or CIA officer gets caught doing a black bag job on terrorists and gets his or her head chopped off on youtube what would say to their family - a star on the wall at Langley is no replacement for a mom or a dad

Re:Classic selective reading, or idiocy (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 months ago | (#47676677)

A human can plant a device in the right place at the right time to get audio/video when needed.

In many circumstances, so can a UAS. Just like a human can't do it in every case, a UAS can't do it in every case either, but for a great many, they work great.

They can crawl through air ducts and sewers if needed

And a UAS can fly over where people are looking and either survey from there or land and survey from its landing position.

do all kinds of things on a whim that don't relate to blowing things up or firing bullets into bad guys

Why do you keep thinking that UAS can only shoot things? Are you retarded?

A drone can only get to locations where enough air space exists, unless you are talking about drones that currently only exist in movies.

Stop using the word drone.

I have a UAS the size of a cracker with a video camera on it. I can't find a link to it, but here is one of similar size: http://www.revell.com/radio-co... [revell.com] That one doesn't have a camera, but the size is about the same.

Its not in a movie.

A drone makes noise, if you are close enough to listen in to a conversation the bad guy can most likely hear the drone.

All my UAVs are electric and unless at high power, they are very quiet. With a directional mic, I can listen on you from far enough away that you can neither hear no see me unless someone points out the EXACT location in the sky and I haven't bothered to color it to make it hard to see. Its hard enough to see when its painted day glo orange, let alone sky blue or grey. Quads are noisy, but a standard fixed wing aircraft is very quiet since it can fly on relatively low power. It doesn't have to be very far away before you can't hear or see it.

A drone has a higher chance of failure which risks missions, a gust of wind is all it takes to blow cover.

All of my UAVs except the indoor ones can hold position in 45 mph gusts, thats covers 99% of the weather that matters.

They are much larger than a micro camera or microphone therefor easier for bad guys to spot.

Thats true, they don't generally replace a perfectly planted device INSIDE some building, of course thats only one of many different types of surveillance that needs to be done. Of course that 'micro camera or microphone' have shitty optics and shitty sound qualities so unless you're in the same room, they are more or less worthless as well, and you certainly aren't using them to survey drug dealers or gun runners in the middle of an open field any more than you're using a UAS in someone living room.

Just because you're too primitive to realize there are multiple situations doesn't make it true.

Re:Classic selective reading, or idiocy (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 months ago | (#47677621)

I get it! Ignore the logistics problems I stated and demand that I use a different terminology so people don't recognize them as drones, and the technology will all magically work just like in the movies! Your "In many circumstances, so can a UAS. Just like a human can't do it in every case, a UAS can't do it in every case either, but for a great many, they work great." is a complete fabrication! Instead of using ad hominem why not actually have a rebuttal for my points? Oh, you can't because your delusion does not match reality.

To see your delusion up close and personal, look at what you write. Of course that 'micro camera or microphone' have shitty optics and shitty sound qualities so unless you're in the same room. In practice the shitty versions are what they put in various drone technologies for weight limitations. At best you would have the same cameras and same microphones on the drones, but using radio frequencies that can be detected easier (can be jammed from longer range as well) to send the audio and video streams. Drones can't magically make cameras, microphones, and communications better, sorry.

If it takes a fleet of drones to replace what a human can do how is this cheaper or better? Answer, it's not cheaper and not better. I know, I know.. if we just spend more tax payer money we will eventually end up with better drones and can get rid of officers. Just ignore the fact that it takes people to operate the drones, maintain the drones, humans would still be required for the majority of the work, and you will have to continue spending more and more because that is how the game works.

One day maybe we will have androids that could replace humans in police work. Until that time, there is no cost benefit for using drones in Police work. Further, there is absolutely 1 thing where robotics are better than humans, and only because it keeps humans safe. That one thing is ordinance disposal.

Re:Classic selective reading, or idiocy (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 months ago | (#47677965)

I get it! Ignore the logistics problems I stated and demand that I use a different terminology so people don't recognize them as drones

I'm sorry, you're right. Please continue to use incorrect terms so that its easy for everyone else to recognize that you're not qualified to be part of the discussion.

technology will all magically work just like in the movies!

You're the only one that thinks UAVs have to work like they do in movies to be useful and cost effective. You seem to think that if they aren't exactly like they behave in the latest Iron Man, they aren't useful at all.

Instead of using ad hominem why not actually have a rebuttal for my points?

... Did you even read my reply? It sure doesn't seem like it, I used facts to dispute your silly perspective on reality, but don't let that stand in the way of your ignorance by all means, continue.

In practice the shitty versions are what they put in various drone technologies for weight limitations

Uhm, no, it isn't. My UAS carries a Sony RX100, hardly a cheap shitty camera. It sits on a gyro stabilized gimble that is vibration isolated from the frame itself to ensure the pictures are better than any human can take for less than $500, which is the cost of the camera itself Thats my SMALL UAV. Carrying a full fledged DSLR is pretty common ... and we're talking about normal every day citizens, not $150k UAVs that the FBI uses. Google is your friend, look up what is actually in use on these UAVs, the camera modules on these UAVs in use by the FBI are ridiculously high quality devices.

but using radio frequencies that can be detected easier (can be jammed from longer range as well) to send the audio and video streams. Drones can't magically make cameras, microphones, and communications better, sorry.

So apparently, only people can use cameras that store photos locally? Thats weird because the only transmission of video off of my UAV is for fun, my still camera is 20mega pixel, sending that via RF for the price I'm willing to pay isn't possible. HD video is possible, but again more than I'm willing to pay. However, for some reason you seem to think they have to feed all data real time? It can be done in bursts or at another time ... like normal field agents would do?

You also seem to think that its trivial to tell when a device several miles away from you with a directional antenna pointing away from you is transmitting, and you can magically tell it apart from all the other RF in the air and that its related to you, and exactly where its at.

You seem to think that the FBI is using its drones to monitor high end NSA and CIA agents with massive resources in use. You fail to acknowledge that these devices can be used for things like ... border patrol, where a bunch of illegal immigrants running across the desert with nothing more than the shirt off their back have absolutely no chance of knowing there is a UAV in the air unless it flies into them.

If it takes a fleet of drones to replace what a human can do how is this cheaper or better?

You have that backwards, 1 UAV can, as I said, easily stay on station for 24 hours, which means one UAV can replace about 6 people per day, assuming you use the standard 8 hour shift with 2 men per shift, which is the only way you can keep a human (FBI quality anyway) focused in a useful manner.

Just ignore the fact that it takes people to operate the drones, maintain the drones, humans would still be required for the majority of the work, and you will have to continue spending more and more because that is how the game works.

Software has made the entire process more or less idiot proof. I regularly show people that flying a UAV is trivial by putting it in GPS assisted, semi-auto mode in which case flying a UAV is easier than driving a car. I've turned my UAVs over to people who have never touched a radio controlled vehicle in their lives and they have no problem flying it. One person can maintain HUNDREDS of them.

Until that time, there is no cost benefit for using drones in Police work.

You have a double standard, you require a UAV to do more than a human can do, better than a human can do, in every case, or its worthless. Unless the UAV gives you a blow job while wiping your ass and fingering your taint ever so gently, while saving the world from nuclear disaster, servicing your ex-wife, doing your job for you (senior system engineer/architect? Yea, right, and I'm the Pope, you clearly show no analysis skills that would accompany that title), and calculating all the digits of pi in a millisecond then its worthless and a waste of money.

No UAV, or android will ever satisfy ignorant fucks like you.

Which then leads me to:

You're an ignorant idiot. You don't know what you're talking about and refuse to acknowledge facts from people who do. You're part of the problem with the world today, your not even educated enough to know when you should shut up.

Re:Classic selective reading, or idiocy (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 months ago | (#47678445)

Your opinion on terminology is absolutely idiotic. The term "Drones" covers all variations of drones in a single word, and in a generalized topic like "How Drones Entered the FBI's Spying Toolkit" it is the correct terminology.

Your insistence on using a specific mission acronym is as idiotic as your false claim that a drone which can sit for 24 hours is better than a fixed camera that can sit for as long as needed in police work.

So apparently, only people can use cameras that store photos locally?

So your mini camera now holds as much video as a fixed device? Wholly fuck man, stick with reality! You can't even differentiate between video and still shots. The former being preferred for Police who have no idea when the bad guy will say something to incriminate themselves or commit a crime, the latter being preferred by hobbyists who don't have a 6 month long case that goes in the toilet if there is a mistake or something is missing.

Nobody gives a shit about how you use drones in your personal life for your hobby! Your personal experience has absolutely nothing to do with Police work (except for perhaps in your imagination). In Police work, humans do it better.

Re:Classic selective reading, or idiocy (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 months ago | (#47680219)

Using the wrong terminology shows your ignorance. It shows you're as ignorant as the news media. You need to open a dictionary. They aren't Borg, or bees. Your insistence on calling them drones just brings up the fact that you're ignorant of the field completely.

So your mini camera now holds as much video as a fixed device?

I don't USE a mini camera. Thats the point. My smallest outdoor UAV carries a Sony RX100 Compact camera. Its a 20 mega pixel camera with a 1" sensor. It stores roughly roughly 16 hours of 1080p video on a SD card with the right compression, and I can stuff in larger ones if I had any need. It is considered one of the highest quality 'compact' cameras you can buy. My larger drones carry DSLRs where the body alone costs roughly $2500, and that doesn't include the optics. They sit on gyro stabilized gimbals that are more stable than implanting one in the wall of a California building! A human can't physically hold a camera a still and stable as my UAVs do. Your body is incapable of doing so. That said, the RX100 is a shitty video camera, but its only $500 so I don't worry about it being over water following me around on full-auto when I'm in my boat fishing so that I can get video of myself.

http://www.imaging-resource.co... [imaging-resource.com] is a quick example of the CHEAPEST and SMALLEST camera I carry.

You don't know anything about UAVs, they don't use the shitty little mini cameras you think they have to carry and thats the point, you have have any idea what you're talking about or what they are capable of. Hell, you can't even read or you would have known from my first post that I don't use shitty little 'mini' cameras since that was the point I was making. You think UAVs carry crappy low level equipment because you saw some black and white footage on some TV show or something stupid. My UAVs carry the same equipment as professional photographers, partly because I get paid for it on occasion.

I do almost exclusively still photos so I don't carry any high end video cameras, but theres nothing different about them that prevents me from doing so. Its not like they are bigger or heavier than a full sized DSLR with full sized optics.

Your personal experience has absolutely nothing to do with Police work (except for perhaps in your imagination).

Except that my 'hobby' experience is more than capable of doing everything you claim they aren't, and more. My 'hobby' experience shows your utter ignorance of the subject. And for reference, its not a hobby when you do it as a job, so please, go ahead and tell me all about what I do for a living. The point is that my hobby gear is light years beyond what you think the high end commercial gear can do.

I have personal and professional experience. You have none what so ever.

In Police work, humans do it better.

No, they don't, not for certain things. A UAV can't arrest a suspect, but for certain types of surveillance they are better than 10 well trained men, and they don't require people to risk their lives. This is a simple fact. The military knows it. The FBI knows it. The CIA knows it. The Immigration and Customs service know it, and many police departments know it. You seem to be incapable of accepting that you don't know what you're talking about.

Grow up. You're wrong. Deal with it and move on.

Re:They don't "need" drones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675927)

Law enforcement, including the FBI, is not the military.

That's not what law enforcement thinks... have you seen the gadgets they've been getting lately? From the looks of it, they are those guys trying to get into the military but failed for whatever reason and are now trying to get into the police force because all they are good for is point and shoot.

Re:They don't "need" drones (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 3 months ago | (#47676341)

And on the plus-side, unlike combatants in a war, citizens are not allowed to shoot back when these "people" try to kill them.

Re:They don't "need" drones (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 3 months ago | (#47676351)

You do know that the FBI also has the Contra Espionage and terrorism Briefs and as you get so upset about using the military on US soil the FBI have a valid justification for using drones etc or would you rather use a manned helicopter with all the expense and additional risk that entails.

weather having a police force do serious work like CT and CE is a totally other matter I think the FBI should have been split after Hover died into a traditional police force and something closer to MI5 or actually use the Secret Service to do it an have the FBI do the non secret bits of the secret services job

Re:They don't "need" drones (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47676617)

On the tax payers dollar, there is absolutely nothing for a drone to do that manpower can't do better.

Except stay on station for 24 hours straight without blinking, without eating, without a bathroom break, without getting tired, without having their mind wonder.

Can they covertly listen in to conversations with a drone?

Yes, directional long range mics are not exactly new. Its easy to filter out the sound of the drone itself considering the difference between motor and prop frequency and that of the human voice. They can do it without risking an agent.

Can they covertly film better with drones?

Yes, again at altitude you won't notice the drone or hear it, it can sit there for hours on auto pilot and automatically keep the camera pointed at a specific location or use software to track a person or object automatically. They can do it without risking an agent.

Can they make arrests with drones? No to all of those things.

No, but it can certainly help, by doing the things above as well as doing things like providing a over view of the operation to field directors. When the drone gets shot ... its probably less than the cost of treating a flesh wound on an agent, let alone anything serious or death.

I'm not against some of the drone technology in the Military.

Thats good because you don't seem to know shit about them apparently.

A $1500 UAS such as my smallest one can do everything you say the $150k UAS then FBI uses can't except stay on station for 24 hours. They aren't flying some shitty DJI Phantom like you see in YouTube videos flying into buildings by some jackass who shouldn't be allowed to own one.

My UAS films and follows my boat while I fish, automatically, without being close enough for me to hear it, and it host 1% of what the FBI UAS's do.

And please stop calling it a drone, only the ignorant call them drones. What does that even mean in this context?

Re:They don't "need" drones (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 2 months ago | (#47678899)

"civilians are the secondary concern of a soldier" exactly why more needs to be done when they leave the military and enter the police force.

Because... (0)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 3 months ago | (#47675773)

They respond really well to buckshot when they get caught scoping out ur girl in the bikini and produce awesome high res photos. They get board too when she's not on the phone and leaned to fly radio controlled aircraft.

That would also explain all the banning-attempts (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 3 months ago | (#47676333)

After all, citizens, I mean criminals, could fight back with anti-drone drones. Better make these people terrorists for just attempting that. And also make anybody shooting at drones, except "law"-enforcement, a terrorist as well, easier all around.

No. Drones are military weapons. (1)

lasermike026 (528051) | about 3 months ago | (#47676505)

Drones are military weapons and the FBI is a civilian organization. No civilian organization should have access to military style weapons, uniforms, or equipment.

Re:No. Drones are military weapons. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47676629)

I own a UAS, does that make me a military organization?

So do you think citizens shouldn't be allowed to own them either? Or is it that citizens should be allowed by not the cops? Whats the logic in your position? Is it okay for me because I don't have a hellfire missile? The FBI doesn't either, just cameras and mics ... just like mine.

Re:No. Drones are military weapons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677159)

When drones are outlawed, only terrorists will have drones!

Re:No. Drones are military weapons. (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 2 months ago | (#47679811)

"Drones are military weapons ... No civilian organization should have access to military style weapons, uniforms, or equipment."

Knives are military weapons too! I hope you are prepared to go to Gitmo V2 for your beliefs, because with people like you we are well on our way!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?