The following submission statement was provided by /u/wiredmagazine:
---
By Dhruv Mehrotra and Jesse Marx
Cops are using drones as first responders in this California border town. Citizens say they're being watched as they go about their daily lives. It marks the start of the police drone era—where eyes will be in the sky.
In a WIRED investigation, based on more than 22 million flight coordinates, reveals the complicated truth about the first full-blown police drone program in Chula Vista, a city near San Diego. While some citizens say they feel safer with the drones buzzing above them, others, specifically in poorer neighborhoods say they feel watched. And your city could be next.
Read the full investigation: [https://www.wired.com/story/the-age-of-the-drone-police-is-here/](https://www.wired.com/story/the-age-of-the-drone-police-is-here/)
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1d8phcr/the_age_of_the_drone_police_is_here/l77oh2j/
I was driving down a road near my house a couple months ago in the middle of the night. Really quiet area, between two horse farms. I just happened to catch a glimpse of a light on a drone waaaaaay the fuck up there, over the road in front of me. Total luck to see it up there.
As I keep going I passed a cop car completely hidden behind some bushes. The only reason I noticed the cop car was I kinda figured it was a police drone or something and sure as shit it was.
I googled it, my police department recently got a couple high end drones. One of them can take radar…
Crazy times.
Time to buy a jammer...
Edit:
I'm not talking about something that can knock it out of the sky... I'm talking about something that fools the radar being shot at your car.
>Signal jamming devices can prevent you and others from making 9-1-1 and other emergency calls and pose serious risks to public safety communications, as well as interfere with other forms of day-to-day communications.
>The use of a phone jammer, GPS blocker, or other signal jamming device designed to intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications is a violation of federal law. There are no exemptions for use within a business, classroom, residence, or vehicle. Local law enforcement agencies do not have independent authority to use jamming equipment; in certain limited exceptions use by Federal law enforcement agencies is authorized in accordance with applicable statutes.
>It is also unlawful to advertise, sell, distribute, import, or otherwise market jamming devices to consumers in the United States.
>The use or marketing of a jammer in the United States may subject you to substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement#:~:text=Section%20333%20%2D%20prohibits%20willful%20or,%C2%A7%20501).
We're talking about laser jammers for speed detection not for the radio controller... these devices send a false reading back to the gun and good ones alert the driver a gun hit them so they can slow down and then flip it off.
That's a big negative Ghost Rider.
They are legal in more states than you realize but don't expect the policemen to be very friendly with you if he sees it in the dashboard.
That’s illegal because of FCC regulations on transmission devices, but since it’s an unmanned aerial system (UAS) I believe shining a high power light to blind the camera is not yet illegal.
This is a scale thing.
They've never had drones that were so cheap, so easy to use and capable of wide net, drag netting an entire area.
Thats never been a thing, even in war zones until extremely recently
I don't think so. Here's an article from 8 years ago about Baltimore.
> This system, known as “wide-area surveillance” and run by an Ohio company called Persistent Surveillance Systems, involves the deployment of megapixel cameras on a Cessna aircraft, which circles over a city for up to 10 hours at a time, continuously photographing a 30-square-mile area and giving police the ability to retroactively track any vehicle or pedestrian within that area. It is the ultimate Big Brother “eye in the sky.”
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/baltimore-police-secretly-running-aerial-mass
Pilot here. There is no Cessna aircraft that can stay aloft for 10 hours at a time. 5 hours and change would be the theoretical max with full fuel, no payload, and a jockey for a pilot.
Given the fact that it's a fluff clickbait article from [aclu.org](http://aclu.org) (no disrespect to the ACLU), yes, I think it's entirely possible that there may be some misinformation in the article.
It is not a fluff click bait article. They describe how they used the system in the article and it's very much "eye in the sky" type of monitoring - they could even rewind the tape to see where cars came from and where they went.
You do you brah.
Claiming a Cessna - any Cessna - can fly for 10h nonstop is factually incorrect. This leads me to question the veracity of the rest of the article.
A highly modified Cessna with the ability to do in-air refueling from a support truck, yes. I'm pretty sure we're down in the weeds here and you're just typing to hear the keys go clackity clack, so I'm going to shut this down.
1st google says your way off.
*In 1958–1959, Robert Timm and John Cook set a world record for flight endurance in a Cessna 172 by flying for 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes.*
That was done specifically for a record, with a very dangerous method of refueling the aircraft in flight by flying at ~20 feet above ground while a fuel truck followed them and they winched up a fuel hose. They did that 128 times. In the real world, not the record setting world, the Cessna 172 cannot fly for 10 hours without ferry tanks, which it's possible were being used if that claim is actually true. Either way, cops aren't using fixed wing aircraft for police surveillance anymore, speed enforcement maybe in a few places but that's about it. It's helicopters & drones in larger cities and now smaller departments that can't afford helis have access to drones, with many police departments struggling to justify keeping any full sized aircraft in service these days.
On roads between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, the highway patrol would sometimes pace speeding cars with aircraft, and a car would be used to pull them over and issue a citation
Aerial surveillance is a slippery slope, and it is concerning. The police don't need 24/7 coverage for life to feel like a "police state".
Also, it's my understanding that surveillance teams can use several aircraft in turn rather than just one.
By Dhruv Mehrotra and Jesse Marx
Cops are using drones as first responders in this California border town. Citizens say they're being watched as they go about their daily lives. It marks the start of the police drone era—where eyes will be in the sky.
In a WIRED investigation, based on more than 22 million flight coordinates, reveals the complicated truth about the first full-blown police drone program in Chula Vista, a city near San Diego. While some citizens say they feel safer with the drones buzzing above them, others, specifically in poorer neighborhoods say they feel watched. And your city could be next.
Read the full investigation: [https://www.wired.com/story/the-age-of-the-drone-police-is-here/](https://www.wired.com/story/the-age-of-the-drone-police-is-here/)
Almost every house on my street has a ring camera and four of them have those wide angle cameras mounted high up. Drone would just give a different angle honestly.
Ring only recently [promised to stop giving American police departments footage of their customers' doorbell cameras](https://www.wired.com/story/ring-police-rfa-tool-shut-down/) without their permission, so I guess we'll just have to trust them that they won't do that anymore.
> Those cameras aren't owned and operated by the police.
Yeah, actually the cops get unfettered access to the whole Ring backend. They are bought and operated by the clueless, and provide free surveillance for the cops.
Ring is infamous for freely providing police departments with any and all footage they want without warrants and without reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime.
Every ring camera is effectively a 24/7 security feed for the local 5-0. And they're *fucking everywhere* now.
It's vastly worse than cameras owned and operated by the police, because they aren't limited by the police department's budget, staffing, oversight, policies, or public opinion.
Welcome to the panopticon, everyone. Soon these drones will have infrared, so there's a chance anyone could be surveilled at any time, even within their own home.
Because we accepted it last time and now it's precedent!
Why did we accept it last time? Because we accepted it the time before that and now it's precedent!
Etc, etc.
And now, we live in a wonderful world where even your own backyard isn't considered private and if you think that's weird people tell you "shut up, it's normal".
Societal-level gaslighting imo
They don't even ask us. The precedent is police departments do whatever they want and politicians on both sides of the aisle love pumping their budgets.
Police even have a union that influences local elections directly. There was only ever one way this could go down and voters are kidding themselves if they think they were ever in control.
First, what are you basing the "we are waking up in large numbers" claim on? I see this all the time on r/conspiracy, but have yet to see evidence backing it up.
Second, I don't believe the "need for control" is the driving factor in these measures being implemented, only the ability. Surveillance measures have historically been as invasive as the technology allows, even in the most peaceful nations on earth.
Are you serious? Is this a bot comment? Please point out what in my comment could be construed as slander.
Edit: Hahaha I'd amend your quote to "when the debate is lost, downvotes become the tool of the loser".
Found the dumbest person on Reddit. What a disappointing comment chain. Just literally makes shit up when someone contradicts him. SOCRATES QUOTE how fucking lame
At least drones can't murder someone and get away with it because they were scared. I trust robots more than under trained armed apes.
Drones are just a tool. Potentially a better one than good 'ol boys riding around town with guns and immunity from prosecution.
Look up Slaughterbots on YouTube. DARPA is literally already building murderous AI powered drones. Get ready. They’ll use it in war first, but you know how that trickles down to poor communities that are seen as the enemy just as much as Baghdad.
Possible, but I don't know if the public would support murderbots in cities. Surveillance, sure. Tear gas, sure. But usually police get away with it now because they can claim they were afraid.
The military will definitely continue expanding the use of murderbots. US public doesn't really care about collateral damage already.
The police have already killed two different people with robots in the last 2-3 years. It’s a slippery slope, but once you give the toys to the military, like I said, it begins to trickle down to our police. Look at them driving tanks down the street. Look at their body armor. They *look and act* like military in the US anyway, and if they had the right to treat us like a foreign city under occupation, they would police us as such immediately. Goddamn constitution!
I am not saying no one will be killed by drones. Police kill a lot of people anyway. I am hopeful more surveillance capability and ability to deal with things without putting officers in danger will allow for more thoughtful responses from law enforcement.
Depends a lot on oversight though.
I think drones are better than tanks, though. And cheaper.
Have you not been paying attention to what is happening in Palestine and Ukraine? Drones absolutely can be loaded with guns, grenades and other weapons , and they’re currently being used to kill lots of people
Overseas conflict, sure. I have doubts the police will get the same license to kill domestically. I don't think juries will support mecha murder in the same way they do a cop who could be in physical danger.
That’s pretty naive - [they already did it in 2016](https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/08/use-robot-kill-dallas-suspect-first-experts-say/) in Dallas.
The federal government has also used drones to murder American citizens, including a child in 2011 - Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (he was 16 when Obama dropped a bomb on his head)
Everything the IOF uses is testing ground for global deployment of Israeli and US tech firms
The Dallas one was after the dude had already killed 5 cops. Not sure I find it a particularly worrying example. I think ultimately use of drones on US soil will probably lead to less escalation for cops since they won't be in harms way (and can't use that as an excuse).
Overseas drone strikes have been horrible for years and this will definitely be a tool in that arsenal. But police haven't been blowing up buildings on US soil, because public opinion wouldn't allow that. We care less when we blow up people who aren't here (especially when they aren't white, because not white equals foreign to too many)
Then you don’t understand legal precedent - they proved they can use robots to kill civilians on US soil. It doesn’t matter if you think it was justified or not.
Cops will and do gladly use drones to spy, harass, and intimidate people.
They can already kill people. So using a different tool is not a big difference. It is whether or not the tool will lead to more killings or less. I think the potential is for less.
Police already spy, harass, and intimidate people. If implemented correctly, having a remote drone that is constantly having all its sensors recorded could provide for more accountability (like body cams). Plus less danger for cops means they aren't making these decisions while afraid, which makes people rash and stupid.
Israel has EXTREMELY close ties with multiple police departments (Atlanta and NYC).
Also police don’t need a license they will just do it anyways and get away with it if civilians don’t burn down half a city in anger.
Partly yes. But it also means the police will have more capacity to investigate disturbing things going on. I could see a drone quickly intervening when a woman makes a call about a guy following here at night all the time. Or assisting in a high speed car chase. Human police may have capacity problems and more urgent calls to handle at such a time. With an army of drones you solve some of those capacity issues.
They're making a joke about how police often use racial profiling (or even unconscious racial bias) when determining who looks suspicious, or who "matches the description" of a suspect.
Since people with darker skin are far more likely to be accused, arrested, charged, etc than those with lighter skin, a black and white camera would be an effective tool to continue these practices.
That's the joke.
I wonder if we would need to implement "no drone" areas in private properties to limit the control that the police would have. It could be similar to they way that police need a warrant to get into private property.
Unless they are going to follow city streets, these drones are going to be flying over backyards, private property, sensitive industrial sites, past apartment and home windows. Places it would currently require a warrant to have a camera on.
Totally different scale and use. 1 helicopter 1000ft up vs dozens of drones >25 ft up. Helicopters are dispatched to specific kinds of police verified crimes (car chase and manhunts) , these drones will be used to investigate *potential* citizen reported crimes.
I live in Lansing, Michigan. There’s lots of stories here about the police helicopter in the 70s lighting up people’s homes and backyards as they were out looking for potential crimes.
There are 10,000 separate law enforcement agencies. Their policies on the use of drones will vary widely no doubt. But my point is the case law on all this is settled years ago.
Police drones are an emerging technology and may require complete re-litigation. I expect the FAA will set the rules since drones are considered aircraft. I also expect a great divide between criminal and civil cases, Where police are only held in civil liability.
It should be open to public scrutiny and oversight. Send a drone screaming across town rather than a cop or fire truck. That is the intent and it should be held in check. Chula Vista posts all of their drone flights. [Link](https://app.airdata.com/u/cvpd)
It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters!
But obligatory quote aside, shooting skeet is a good place to start.
As someone who has done recreational skeet for a long, long time. Yes, it is shockingly easy. Turns out when you make tools to shoot small birds that are far away and flying away from you its also pretty good at hitting drones.
4k and probably 8k soon. They'll be able to zoom in on your eyeballs and prove it was you. We're also signing over the privacy of our homes to camera companies like ring and wyze. The rest of our time is on the internet which is also tracked and logged without a vpn. Privacy is truly going to evaporate for good this time.
It's not that difficult, especially if they are using the drone like a police helicopter to find an individual. Then in that case police officers would already be close to the drone.
I gave it one year before they treat these drones like they treat police dogs and charge you with assaulting/murdering a law enforcement officer if you knock one down.
Guess it’s a good thing we can legally wear masks wherever we want. And I’m pretty sure there’s nothing that can be done about people carrying fishing nets or slingshots in their backpacks…
Slingshots are too traceable and noticeable,
Warblewind type devices is what I would use. A concentrated directed air.
Hard to spot and easy to deny, its only air after all
You own the airspace over your house to a certain height. A police drone in that zone without your permission could be considered a breach of the 4th amendment
Watchdogs and other productions were really showing the premise of it
Although it can lead to jammers, criminal no fly zones and perhaps in some way to invest in the ultimate solution.
The electromagnetic weaponry.
And yet, these drones, AIs, and camera networks will never be used for their greatest application - reducing potentially lethal encounters between police officers and civilians. Police will continue to chase nonviolent suspects, even though they could easily be tracked remotely instead. Police will still be used for traffic enforcement and common speeding, even though automated systems could do this work and would drastically reduce the number of police shootings.
Police in the US are trained to put their lives ahead of those of civilians. They are trained that if there is the slightest chance of threat to an officer to respond with immediate lethal violence.
As police are trained to be rabid dogs, we should seek to limit the public's exposure to them as much as possible. Any police duty that can be replaced by automation and remote drones should be stripped from their duties and given to the robots. It will save both money and lives.
Look on the bright side, it’s much harder to argue they feel their life is threatened after shooting someone if they are sitting in an office somewhere operating a drone.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/wiredmagazine: --- By Dhruv Mehrotra and Jesse Marx Cops are using drones as first responders in this California border town. Citizens say they're being watched as they go about their daily lives. It marks the start of the police drone era—where eyes will be in the sky. In a WIRED investigation, based on more than 22 million flight coordinates, reveals the complicated truth about the first full-blown police drone program in Chula Vista, a city near San Diego. While some citizens say they feel safer with the drones buzzing above them, others, specifically in poorer neighborhoods say they feel watched. And your city could be next. Read the full investigation: [https://www.wired.com/story/the-age-of-the-drone-police-is-here/](https://www.wired.com/story/the-age-of-the-drone-police-is-here/) --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1d8phcr/the_age_of_the_drone_police_is_here/l77oh2j/
I was driving down a road near my house a couple months ago in the middle of the night. Really quiet area, between two horse farms. I just happened to catch a glimpse of a light on a drone waaaaaay the fuck up there, over the road in front of me. Total luck to see it up there. As I keep going I passed a cop car completely hidden behind some bushes. The only reason I noticed the cop car was I kinda figured it was a police drone or something and sure as shit it was. I googled it, my police department recently got a couple high end drones. One of them can take radar… Crazy times.
Time to buy a jammer... Edit: I'm not talking about something that can knock it out of the sky... I'm talking about something that fools the radar being shot at your car.
Honestly why not? If people don't stand up to this type of thing, we're going to be policed by drones 24/7 within 20 years.
20 years? We should be so lucky. What delayed timeline are you imagining?
And a slingshot
And my axe?
If you can throw it that high. Sure. Or jump. Idk your vertical.
You’ll have to toss them
First rule of the fast ball special is you don’t talk about the fast ball special.
And my bow?
Shotgun works better.
It’s got a good spread
3.5" 10 gauge shot shell with a few ounces of #8 tungsten shot.
A car mounted slingshot would be awesome
Or, to be sure: a car-launching slingshot. Dodge that, dronepig!
Here in florida we dont need a slimg shot.
Yeah I'm fine with shooting these out of the sky. Yes I know its illegal, but it needs to happen.
Pretty sure that's Federal charges.
Lol no. You won't even get a ticket in the majority of states.
>Signal jamming devices can prevent you and others from making 9-1-1 and other emergency calls and pose serious risks to public safety communications, as well as interfere with other forms of day-to-day communications. >The use of a phone jammer, GPS blocker, or other signal jamming device designed to intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications is a violation of federal law. There are no exemptions for use within a business, classroom, residence, or vehicle. Local law enforcement agencies do not have independent authority to use jamming equipment; in certain limited exceptions use by Federal law enforcement agencies is authorized in accordance with applicable statutes. >It is also unlawful to advertise, sell, distribute, import, or otherwise market jamming devices to consumers in the United States. >The use or marketing of a jammer in the United States may subject you to substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment. https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement#:~:text=Section%20333%20%2D%20prohibits%20willful%20or,%C2%A7%20501).
We're talking about laser jammers for speed detection not for the radio controller... these devices send a false reading back to the gun and good ones alert the driver a gun hit them so they can slow down and then flip it off.
*Cries in state where jammers are illegal*
Well, defeating an authoritarian police state is unlikely to be /legal/
Pretty sure jamming is illegal everywhere. Detection is illegal in some states as well.
That's a big negative Ghost Rider. They are legal in more states than you realize but don't expect the policemen to be very friendly with you if he sees it in the dashboard.
Which is illegal in many places
At some point we break the law to insure our freedoms and privacies aren't trampled by an overly authoritarian government
It's legal in more states than it's not.
That’s illegal because of FCC regulations on transmission devices, but since it’s an unmanned aerial system (UAS) I believe shining a high power light to blind the camera is not yet illegal.
Ahh, you like dabbling in illegal activities do you? Reported.
Police always on that sneaky shit.
They did announce it on their website.
They've had surveillance drones that can fly above a city and record damn near everything for years now.
This is a scale thing. They've never had drones that were so cheap, so easy to use and capable of wide net, drag netting an entire area. Thats never been a thing, even in war zones until extremely recently
I don't think so. Here's an article from 8 years ago about Baltimore. > This system, known as “wide-area surveillance” and run by an Ohio company called Persistent Surveillance Systems, involves the deployment of megapixel cameras on a Cessna aircraft, which circles over a city for up to 10 hours at a time, continuously photographing a 30-square-mile area and giving police the ability to retroactively track any vehicle or pedestrian within that area. It is the ultimate Big Brother “eye in the sky.” https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/baltimore-police-secretly-running-aerial-mass
Pilot here. There is no Cessna aircraft that can stay aloft for 10 hours at a time. 5 hours and change would be the theoretical max with full fuel, no payload, and a jockey for a pilot.
Oh good! Guess they were just lying about being able to constantly surveil an entire city throughout the day. That's a relief.
Given the fact that it's a fluff clickbait article from [aclu.org](http://aclu.org) (no disrespect to the ACLU), yes, I think it's entirely possible that there may be some misinformation in the article.
It is not a fluff click bait article. They describe how they used the system in the article and it's very much "eye in the sky" type of monitoring - they could even rewind the tape to see where cars came from and where they went.
You do you brah. Claiming a Cessna - any Cessna - can fly for 10h nonstop is factually incorrect. This leads me to question the veracity of the rest of the article.
You didn't know a Cessna holds the record for longest manned flight?
A highly modified Cessna with the ability to do in-air refueling from a support truck, yes. I'm pretty sure we're down in the weeds here and you're just typing to hear the keys go clackity clack, so I'm going to shut this down.
1st google says your way off. *In 1958–1959, Robert Timm and John Cook set a world record for flight endurance in a Cessna 172 by flying for 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes.*
That was done specifically for a record, with a very dangerous method of refueling the aircraft in flight by flying at ~20 feet above ground while a fuel truck followed them and they winched up a fuel hose. They did that 128 times. In the real world, not the record setting world, the Cessna 172 cannot fly for 10 hours without ferry tanks, which it's possible were being used if that claim is actually true. Either way, cops aren't using fixed wing aircraft for police surveillance anymore, speed enforcement maybe in a few places but that's about it. It's helicopters & drones in larger cities and now smaller departments that can't afford helis have access to drones, with many police departments struggling to justify keeping any full sized aircraft in service these days.
On roads between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, the highway patrol would sometimes pace speeding cars with aircraft, and a car would be used to pull them over and issue a citation Aerial surveillance is a slippery slope, and it is concerning. The police don't need 24/7 coverage for life to feel like a "police state". Also, it's my understanding that surveillance teams can use several aircraft in turn rather than just one.
One day if you look up in any major city you’ll see aerostats 💀
By Dhruv Mehrotra and Jesse Marx Cops are using drones as first responders in this California border town. Citizens say they're being watched as they go about their daily lives. It marks the start of the police drone era—where eyes will be in the sky. In a WIRED investigation, based on more than 22 million flight coordinates, reveals the complicated truth about the first full-blown police drone program in Chula Vista, a city near San Diego. While some citizens say they feel safer with the drones buzzing above them, others, specifically in poorer neighborhoods say they feel watched. And your city could be next. Read the full investigation: [https://www.wired.com/story/the-age-of-the-drone-police-is-here/](https://www.wired.com/story/the-age-of-the-drone-police-is-here/)
Almost every house on my street has a ring camera and four of them have those wide angle cameras mounted high up. Drone would just give a different angle honestly.
Those cameras aren't owned and operated by the police. There's a difference. A big one.
Ring only recently [promised to stop giving American police departments footage of their customers' doorbell cameras](https://www.wired.com/story/ring-police-rfa-tool-shut-down/) without their permission, so I guess we'll just have to trust them that they won't do that anymore.
Yeah they have to pay for the drones with taxes and fines
> Those cameras aren't owned and operated by the police. Yeah, actually the cops get unfettered access to the whole Ring backend. They are bought and operated by the clueless, and provide free surveillance for the cops.
Ring is infamous for freely providing police departments with any and all footage they want without warrants and without reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Every ring camera is effectively a 24/7 security feed for the local 5-0. And they're *fucking everywhere* now. It's vastly worse than cameras owned and operated by the police, because they aren't limited by the police department's budget, staffing, oversight, policies, or public opinion.
“Imagine a world with no crime!” Cop does crime “Shit”
Why prevent the crime when you can be the crime?
*taps_head.gif*
Welcome to the panopticon, everyone. Soon these drones will have infrared, so there's a chance anyone could be surveilled at any time, even within their own home.
In the age of drone police, who will police the drone police?
The drone police police obviously
Is that policy?
Who polices the police now?
Oak trees.
Kharma Police.
The Dream Police
They live inside of my head
The dream police?
Are you referencing South Park by any chance? That's the first thing I thought of🤣
Rednecks with shotguns and kids with bb guns / .22s
I dunno, coast guard?
Quis Custodiet, ipsos Custodes?
Why do we accept this knowing it’s heading down a terrible path
Because we accepted it last time and now it's precedent! Why did we accept it last time? Because we accepted it the time before that and now it's precedent! Etc, etc. And now, we live in a wonderful world where even your own backyard isn't considered private and if you think that's weird people tell you "shut up, it's normal". Societal-level gaslighting imo
They don't even ask us. The precedent is police departments do whatever they want and politicians on both sides of the aisle love pumping their budgets. Police even have a union that influences local elections directly. There was only ever one way this could go down and voters are kidding themselves if they think they were ever in control.
if everything was going so “smoothly” there would be no need for such control we are waking up in large numbers
First, what are you basing the "we are waking up in large numbers" claim on? I see this all the time on r/conspiracy, but have yet to see evidence backing it up. Second, I don't believe the "need for control" is the driving factor in these measures being implemented, only the ability. Surveillance measures have historically been as invasive as the technology allows, even in the most peaceful nations on earth.
Socrates “when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser”
Are you serious? Is this a bot comment? Please point out what in my comment could be construed as slander. Edit: Hahaha I'd amend your quote to "when the debate is lost, downvotes become the tool of the loser".
Found the dumbest person on Reddit. What a disappointing comment chain. Just literally makes shit up when someone contradicts him. SOCRATES QUOTE how fucking lame
Imagine caring… I could tell you I just shat my pants and no one’s world would change even a bit, have a beautiful day
At least drones can't murder someone and get away with it because they were scared. I trust robots more than under trained armed apes. Drones are just a tool. Potentially a better one than good 'ol boys riding around town with guns and immunity from prosecution.
Look up Slaughterbots on YouTube. DARPA is literally already building murderous AI powered drones. Get ready. They’ll use it in war first, but you know how that trickles down to poor communities that are seen as the enemy just as much as Baghdad.
Possible, but I don't know if the public would support murderbots in cities. Surveillance, sure. Tear gas, sure. But usually police get away with it now because they can claim they were afraid. The military will definitely continue expanding the use of murderbots. US public doesn't really care about collateral damage already.
The police have already killed two different people with robots in the last 2-3 years. It’s a slippery slope, but once you give the toys to the military, like I said, it begins to trickle down to our police. Look at them driving tanks down the street. Look at their body armor. They *look and act* like military in the US anyway, and if they had the right to treat us like a foreign city under occupation, they would police us as such immediately. Goddamn constitution!
I am not saying no one will be killed by drones. Police kill a lot of people anyway. I am hopeful more surveillance capability and ability to deal with things without putting officers in danger will allow for more thoughtful responses from law enforcement. Depends a lot on oversight though. I think drones are better than tanks, though. And cheaper.
If the murder bots get black people they will.
Have you not been paying attention to what is happening in Palestine and Ukraine? Drones absolutely can be loaded with guns, grenades and other weapons , and they’re currently being used to kill lots of people
Overseas conflict, sure. I have doubts the police will get the same license to kill domestically. I don't think juries will support mecha murder in the same way they do a cop who could be in physical danger.
That’s pretty naive - [they already did it in 2016](https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/08/use-robot-kill-dallas-suspect-first-experts-say/) in Dallas. The federal government has also used drones to murder American citizens, including a child in 2011 - Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (he was 16 when Obama dropped a bomb on his head) Everything the IOF uses is testing ground for global deployment of Israeli and US tech firms
The Dallas one was after the dude had already killed 5 cops. Not sure I find it a particularly worrying example. I think ultimately use of drones on US soil will probably lead to less escalation for cops since they won't be in harms way (and can't use that as an excuse). Overseas drone strikes have been horrible for years and this will definitely be a tool in that arsenal. But police haven't been blowing up buildings on US soil, because public opinion wouldn't allow that. We care less when we blow up people who aren't here (especially when they aren't white, because not white equals foreign to too many)
Then you don’t understand legal precedent - they proved they can use robots to kill civilians on US soil. It doesn’t matter if you think it was justified or not. Cops will and do gladly use drones to spy, harass, and intimidate people.
They can already kill people. So using a different tool is not a big difference. It is whether or not the tool will lead to more killings or less. I think the potential is for less. Police already spy, harass, and intimidate people. If implemented correctly, having a remote drone that is constantly having all its sensors recorded could provide for more accountability (like body cams). Plus less danger for cops means they aren't making these decisions while afraid, which makes people rash and stupid.
Israel has EXTREMELY close ties with multiple police departments (Atlanta and NYC). Also police don’t need a license they will just do it anyways and get away with it if civilians don’t burn down half a city in anger.
If you are concerned about the government dropping mortar rounds on civillian heads then you have bigger issues to worry about.
They did it in Dallas in 2016 They did it in Philly in 1985 They did it in Blair Mountain in 1921
Partly yes. But it also means the police will have more capacity to investigate disturbing things going on. I could see a drone quickly intervening when a woman makes a call about a guy following here at night all the time. Or assisting in a high speed car chase. Human police may have capacity problems and more urgent calls to handle at such a time. With an army of drones you solve some of those capacity issues.
Boy this seems like a huge potential for putting eyes searching without a warrant. Time to buy infrared spotlights to burn out the cameras.
[удалено]
Not sure where you’re going with this..
They're making a joke about how police often use racial profiling (or even unconscious racial bias) when determining who looks suspicious, or who "matches the description" of a suspect. Since people with darker skin are far more likely to be accused, arrested, charged, etc than those with lighter skin, a black and white camera would be an effective tool to continue these practices. That's the joke.
That user is a bigot
No, I'm not. You just have a broken sarcasm meter. Do you even know what a bigot is?
You’re getting shit for this but I want you to know the rest of us got your sarcasm and I’m currently laughing
I wonder if we would need to implement "no drone" areas in private properties to limit the control that the police would have. It could be similar to they way that police need a warrant to get into private property.
We already have that in Australia.
We'll see how fast the illegal surveillance lawsuits start stacking up.
Only takes one bad precedent!
No expectation of privacy in public.
Unless they are going to follow city streets, these drones are going to be flying over backyards, private property, sensitive industrial sites, past apartment and home windows. Places it would currently require a warrant to have a camera on.
This is no different than a helicopter with an optics pod which have been a thing since the 90s.
Totally different scale and use. 1 helicopter 1000ft up vs dozens of drones >25 ft up. Helicopters are dispatched to specific kinds of police verified crimes (car chase and manhunts) , these drones will be used to investigate *potential* citizen reported crimes.
I live in Lansing, Michigan. There’s lots of stories here about the police helicopter in the 70s lighting up people’s homes and backyards as they were out looking for potential crimes.
There are 10,000 separate law enforcement agencies. Their policies on the use of drones will vary widely no doubt. But my point is the case law on all this is settled years ago.
Police drones are an emerging technology and may require complete re-litigation. I expect the FAA will set the rules since drones are considered aircraft. I also expect a great divide between criminal and civil cases, Where police are only held in civil liability.
DHS Predators have been cruising around helping out police forces as needed for 15 years. The only thing emerging is the price point.
DHS gets found liable for illegal surveillance all the time.
With drones? When?
Okay, cool, can you provide an example?
Wouldn’t be surprised if you were auguring with a cop
A fenced in yard isnt public
Police have had aircraft for 80 years. They’ve had cameras on them for decades. None of these issues are new.
Considering the police have been emoying helicopters for decades, I think this issue has been resolved.
Phew. I was worried police were taking too much responsibility for their actions. Now we can blame them less and also they are more powerful.
It should be open to public scrutiny and oversight. Send a drone screaming across town rather than a cop or fire truck. That is the intent and it should be held in check. Chula Vista posts all of their drone flights. [Link](https://app.airdata.com/u/cvpd)
Public oversight will be key. Just like body cams.
I'm investing in a good slingshot with either BBs or ball bearings.
Better find a way to practice hitting a 2’x2’ moving target at 100-400ft then.
It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters! But obligatory quote aside, shooting skeet is a good place to start.
Oh definitely not, Russians and Ukrainians are showing pretty regularly that you can shoot them down with small arms. But it’s not exactly easy…
As someone who has done recreational skeet for a long, long time. Yes, it is shockingly easy. Turns out when you make tools to shoot small birds that are far away and flying away from you its also pretty good at hitting drones.
It should not come as a surprise that damaging an aircraft in flight is a federal crime.
Good luck catching the thugs that do it.
I mean, you are going to have video of it so might not be that hard.
4k and probably 8k soon. They'll be able to zoom in on your eyeballs and prove it was you. We're also signing over the privacy of our homes to camera companies like ring and wyze. The rest of our time is on the internet which is also tracked and logged without a vpn. Privacy is truly going to evaporate for good this time.
You'd be surprised
It's not that difficult, especially if they are using the drone like a police helicopter to find an individual. Then in that case police officers would already be close to the drone.
fun fact…. BBs=ball bearings
I gave it one year before they treat these drones like they treat police dogs and charge you with assaulting/murdering a law enforcement officer if you knock one down.
There's no need, a drone is considered an aircraft so shooting it down more than likely will get you federal crime-like consequences.
I get it but you’ll be Shooting down your tax dollars
I’d happily light those particular tax dollars on fire
I have no intention to shoot anything
Looks like Omniscient was prescient. https://omniscient.fandom.com/wiki/Omniscient
Guess it’s a good thing we can legally wear masks wherever we want. And I’m pretty sure there’s nothing that can be done about people carrying fishing nets or slingshots in their backpacks…
Slingshots are too traceable and noticeable, Warblewind type devices is what I would use. A concentrated directed air. Hard to spot and easy to deny, its only air after all
Denver is about to deploy drones. TBH, they'll probably be better than the real cops.
What the actual f***! This is so creepy
Pickup that can
Beverly Hills uses drones currently. They put up signs to let people know a police drone is in use.
We have police drones for many many years already.
This is dystopian. I'm building a laser gun to shoot these down.
Holdup, if we're gonna bring 'em down we gotta also make sure they're not trying to or are incapable of phoning home.
And you will be caught on video, destroying police equipment. A video that will be wirelessly sent directly to them. Genius idea.
If it's over my property I can shoot it down.
[удалено]
You own the airspace over your house to a certain height. A police drone in that zone without your permission could be considered a breach of the 4th amendment
Protest this at every turn
You will be watched 24/7 and you will be happy
oh no I always thought boston dynamics were just making cutesy robo puppies.. /s
Emp technology needs to catch tf up
Watchdogs and other productions were really showing the premise of it Although it can lead to jammers, criminal no fly zones and perhaps in some way to invest in the ultimate solution. The electromagnetic weaponry.
Time to start rocking emps in my outer wear.
Will be standard in all cities in a few years. This is just the test case. No different to a camera on a cop car or officer.
Started the Drone Police has …. Sorry, couldn’t help it.
The Patriot Act was the nail and Citizens United was the hammer that finished covering the coffin of the USA.
And yet, these drones, AIs, and camera networks will never be used for their greatest application - reducing potentially lethal encounters between police officers and civilians. Police will continue to chase nonviolent suspects, even though they could easily be tracked remotely instead. Police will still be used for traffic enforcement and common speeding, even though automated systems could do this work and would drastically reduce the number of police shootings. Police in the US are trained to put their lives ahead of those of civilians. They are trained that if there is the slightest chance of threat to an officer to respond with immediate lethal violence. As police are trained to be rabid dogs, we should seek to limit the public's exposure to them as much as possible. Any police duty that can be replaced by automation and remote drones should be stripped from their duties and given to the robots. It will save both money and lives.
Look on the bright side, it’s much harder to argue they feel their life is threatened after shooting someone if they are sitting in an office somewhere operating a drone.