Weaponized Police Drones (Houston, Tejas)

[hornadylnl]

I'm trying to understand your argument as the ammo thing doesn't make sense. If the current budget is 1.5 million dollars a department can choose to either:
A. buy 1 helicopter and fly it for a year, or

B. buy a drone, fly it forever, and have a million left over

We've ascertained that both the drone and the helicopter do the exact same thing and have the exact same surveillance equipment.

Are you saying that you don't want the cheaper option because, as in the example, instead of them buying 1 drone and saving a million, they might be inclined to buy 5 drones?

There are several points to my argument. The $1 million cost savings is garbage. We all know that $1 million will never be returned to the tax payers. It will be wasted on other spending.

Do you believe for 1 moment that number of flights won't increase with these drones over helicopters? I'm guessing the sarge will require much stronger evidence to authorize a $400 an hour flight vs a $4 an hour flight with a drone. I believe our liberties are more protected by budget constraints than the constitution any more.

Do I think these things can serve a legitimate purpose? Absolutely. Do I think these things will lead to rights abuses? Does a bear **** in the woods?

 

[vitamink]

There are several points to my argument. The $1 million cost savings is garbage. We all know that $1 million will never be returned to the tax payers. It will be wasted on other spending.

Do you believe for 1 moment that number of flights won't increase with these drones over helicopters? I'm guessing the sarge will require much stronger evidence to authorize a $400 an hour flight vs a $4 an hour flight with a drone. I believe our liberties are more protected by budget constraints than the constitution any more.

Do I think these things can serve a legitimate purpose? Absolutely. Do I think these things will lead to rights abuses? Does a bear **** in the woods?

I understand what you're trying to say now. I don't see how they would lead to any more rights abuses than a regular helicopter, unless you mean that since they're cheaper to operate they'd always be flying and by pure virtue of statistics if 1 in 1000 contacts ends in a rights violation, then it would be exponentially higher with more contacts.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I understand what you're trying to say now. I don't see how they would lead to any more rights abuses than a regular helicopter, unless you mean that since they're cheaper to operate they'd always be flying and by pure virtue of statistics if 1 in 1000 contacts ends in a rights violation, then it would be exponentially higher with more contacts.

Yeah, as far as the whole "they can see/shoot people from the sky!"...

They already could, and have had that capability for a long time...

If this were a hardened military style drone without weapons, I really would not consider it as much of an issue... but this thing appears to be an outfitted toy...

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK, I'll play. What would be a legitimate LE use for this? Taken a step further, you said you "might" have a problem with such a thing being armed. What reasons would you consider valid for a police agency to have (using your examples) "machine guns, stinger missles, and grenade launchers" on it (or the more likely, machine guns and some type of gas grenade vs. explosive ordnance, i.e. a bomb of some kind) I can't see a reason that LE needs to be remotely launching ordnance against citizens. This is not a war zone. I understand you guys want to go home at the end of the shift and I can respect and support that. What I cannot support is the violation of your oath of office to make it happen. I understand that whenever you have rules, those who don't will find a way to take advantage of your limitations. What I don't understand is where the line is drawn once you start exceeding those limitations.

It provides an aerial view of a situation. The uses mirror those of the full sized helicopters. Searching for lost children or elderly, following fleeing felons from a distance rather than traditional pursuit, gathering intelligence prior to serving a warrant, etc.. I don't see the need for weaponry attached to these, not for LE anyway. The entire point of my posts is to point out that because a reporter decided to make the article about the fact that this thing is capable of having weapons installed, some grab that ball and sprint like hell in full blown panic mode.

Example: You can search someone's car without a warrant because of the "plain sight" exception. If you can see something from someone's front door, you can act upon what you see. If you can smell something (or claim you can smell something) from within a car or house, you can act upon that claim. Right now, the line is drawn at a statement of "I smelled an odor consistent with (fill in blank here)".... and who can deny what you say you smelled? The potential for abuse is very high in this, even if you, as an honorable LEO do not abuse it yourself, if you think about it, you either know now or can recall someone you've met in your career who might have been less of a stickler on the practical applications of those rules. I am not asking you to confirm or deny that last supposition on my part. Just think about it, and I would be very surprised if you've never met someone meeting that description.

Sure, I'll admit there are some who cut the corners or even flat out lie. Fortunately they are the minority and I think I've made my position on those very clear over the years. I don't like dirty cops. I would think that anything and everything this drone is used for would be recorded. The video is going to have to be transmitted to the operator anyway. If LE wants to obtain a warrant for something observed with the drone I would hope the judge would want to see it for himself.

From what I've read of your posts, you're an ardent defender of your brethren and sisters in blue (or brown) and you stand on the principle of a man of honor. The down side to that, and the source of an old saying, "nice guys finish last" is that when you are a man of honor, it's hard to imagine someone in your same position who is not. It's offensive to think of someone treating in cavalier fashion those things so important to you... but as we all know, there are those people, even in positions of the highest trust. I've met medics I wouldn't trust with anything sharper than a Nerf ball. The one in particular I have in mind was drummed out when he administered unnecessary meds to a patient due to his own misdiagnosis. That was the last call I worked with him, and his last for our service (he is also no longer certified as even an EMT.) The relevant limitation on us is that we cannot knowingly incorrectly treat a patient. That is inviolable. So... Where's the line for LEOs? If your chief was to decide tomorrow that he wanted a drone.. wanted you as the operator, and was going to use it with a remote mic to spy on citizens not specifically suspected of any wrongdoing... Would you accept the assignment? Keep in mind that he's determined there is a legitimate use for it.. Someone, somewhere out there might be a terrorist, after all..

There are men of honor in every segment of society, there are also turds. You've never seen me defend a cop or anyone else who proves themselves to be a turd. Where you see my feathers ruffled is the constant assumptions that because some idiot with a badge somewhere does something stupid I can no longer be trusted. No one here would stand for it if the discussion were about white men, black men, men with brown hair, men with blonde hair or men in whatever profession they work in. But since it's cops, it's all good. Blanket statements and shotgun punishment all around. It's utterly ****ing ridiculous. People here ***** about "the government", I'd love to see what happens if some of their children grew up and decided to be LE. Gonna stop inviting them over for Thanksgiving dinner cause they can no longer be trusted?

What it comes down to for me is not what the good, honorable officers will do with toys like this, but rather what those without scruples or honor will do without proper oversight... in other words, how could this thing be abused and how do we prevent that? The issue is not with cops, it's with people. Some people are not honorable, ergo, some of any subset of people will also not be.

Looking forward to your thoughts and response.

Blessings,
Bill

All due respect Bill, this issue absolutely, 100% is with cops. If this were a thread created about some RC enthusiast in Idaho who had strapped a rifle to a RC helicopter and was using it to hunt antelope do you honestly believe any single person on INGO would have an issue with it? The answer is hell no.

As usual, it's an "all cops can't be trusted" BS thread, again.

Thanks, Cory. Those are good examples. I will point out, though, that it's not that the bloody thing could be weaponized, it's that it was, according to its manufacturer, built to carry those weapons. If I had some absolute guarantee that this thing not only would not but COULD not be used other than as you say, I'd be 100% behind every department (and S&R, FD, etc.) having one... but you know as well as I do, there are no absolutes and no guarantees.

It's absolutely not that YOU, personally, cannot be trusted, at least from my perspective. It's that I cannot automatically trust a person wearing a badge to be the upright, pillar of the community, Officer Friendly that is, like the absolute guarantee I mentioned, a great goal but not a real possibility. (No insult.. I'm only saying that as good and honorable as I think you are and as you try to be, you're not perfect. You're a man with professionalism at his core, but like all of us, you have failings. (Personally, I think in that, you're in pretty fair company, but I'll stop patting myself on the back before I sprain my elbow. ))

You mention the possibility of the drone gathering evidence for a RAS or PC for a warrant. Think about that just a minute. If I have, let's say, a hookah that I keep on a small table in my bedroom on the second floor of my house, where it cannot be seen from the ground, but this thing is being used to spy on my neighbor (who is about to be served a warrant) or maybe just used by some FTO training his rookie and it IS seen, this could be described as "paraphernalia" and a warrant issued for my property. Never mind that the thing is either decorative or maybe even non-functional, its mere presence in my house could generate that RAS at a minimum. Is this a remote (pardon the pun) example? Sure it is, but it's the first one that came to mind (My sister and brother in law have an old hookah. )

You used the comparison of skin color, hair color, and "other professions" as well. The first two are traits of birth, of course, and while you can color your hair, you can't change genetics. As for other professions, you surely understand that other professions are not given authority over citizens nor the ability to mess up someone's whole freakin' life by the abuse of that authority or public trust. I think a high standard of professionalism should be the minimum acceptable, given those facts. As dross pointed out, when one abuses the authority and others cover it up, it demeans even those who did not participate. Further, as he also said, LEOs often are quoted as saying that they don't know who they're pulling over, but what's ignored is that the citizen doesn't know who's behind that badge, either. Your safety as an officer is important, of course. Why is mine as a citizen less so?

It would be disingenuous for me not to acknowledge that some just have a problem with anyone having authority over their lives. This is very obvious reading the threads on here. In point of fact, though, I think that many LEOs have that same problem. In uniform, you (generic you, not you personally) have a level of power and authority that is given a blanket assumption of truth. That's got to be something of a rush. It's also got to sting a little when some of that is either challenged or taken away, and I think that some resent the hell out of anyone daring to suggest that they are somehow not worthy of the adulation (or maybe just deference) that goes with that level of power.

Your last, about the RC enthusiast with a rifle on a chopper is spot on, but at the same time, misses the mark. I'm not talking solely about a RC drone. I'm talking about trust. Some people cannot be trusted, and all cops are people, so logically, not all cops should be trusted. Some, and I'd even venture to say most can, but just like LTCH holders, you have to get to know them to figure out which ones are which. Until those like you have a gold cape on at work or the bad ones have to wear Dick Dastardly mustaches, there will always be some suspicion.

(and for the record, my mustache is much better looking than Dick Dastardly's. *nod* )

Blessings,
Bill

 

[hornadylnl]

I understand what you're trying to say now. I don't see how they would lead to any more rights abuses than a regular helicopter, unless you mean that since they're cheaper to operate they'd always be flying and by pure virtue of statistics if 1 in 1000 contacts ends in a rights violation, then it would be exponentially higher with more contacts.

I believe there may be way more flights but also think of it like this. You take your car to the mechanic. He says he thinks the problem is a $4 part and would like to try it to see if it fixes the problem. What they hell, it's only $4. But if he tells you he thinks the $400 part is the problem and wants to try it, what's your response? I know mine would be you better be damned sure that's the problem because I don't have $400 to throw away on an unecessary part.

I fully believe that $4 vs $400 flights will inevitably lower the bar for probable cause on an individual to do surveillance.

 

[vitamink]

Which makes it even riskier, being primitive...

Now put it in the air in a place such as Houston, where signal interference is dense...

The fact that it was designed to hold weapons, being that primitively controlled, is a pretty ridiculous situation... thankfully they did not get any weapon systems installed, because that is a horrible idea...

And no, our military has not "figured it out" - military drones are constantly being developed... weaknesses are found, and new developments aim at fixing the issues... It requires huge investments... When military drones with much greater lengths of development time and field testing still require developments to secure, a RC helicopter without anything close to that level of security technology is not ready to be flying over US cities...

Civilians are not permitted to fly these in the city for a good reason....

If you go to their website you'll see that none have weapons installed or ever will as that's just dumb. I assume you're talking about the russian andrew solonikov's program that allowed the bad guys to look at our drone feeds. As you stated before, the military's drones didn't use any encryption.

"The potential drone vulnerability lies in an unencrypted downlink between the unmanned craft and ground control. The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said. But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said."

You could do something as simple as keying up a strong radio and bring that down (then not now). Anything remote being used in the city according to FCC guidelines must have signal encryption. I currently work on a F6A robot that has yet to have any signal issues and it's signal encryption firmware is 5 years old.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

If you go to their website you'll see that none have weapons installed or ever will as that's just dumb. I assume you're talking about the russian andrew solonikov's program that allowed the bad guys to look at our drone feeds. As you stated before, the military's drones didn't use any encryption.

"The potential drone vulnerability lies in an unencrypted downlink between the unmanned craft and ground control. The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said. But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said."

You could do something as simple as keying up a strong radio and bring that down (then not now). Anything remote being used in the city according to FCC guidelines must have signal encryption. I currently work on a F6A robot that has yet to have any signal issues and it's signal encryption firmware is 5 years old.

If it truly operates on basic RC technology, it can be jammed fairly easily - even if the signal channel were encrypted.

Our military UAVs are still currently susceptible to jamming, and have been jammed in flight... The video feed capture incident was the big news story, but many other weaknesses have been pointed out due to incidents in the field...

Control weaknesses are why autonomous drones are all the rage... drones that are pre-programmed before flight, and can make basic decisions without the need of a communications channel for control - protecting them from one of the major weaknesses of remote operated systems.

 

[vitamink]

I'm sure it's not operated with 2 fm crystals on an encrypted signal, but even if it were and you wanted to jam it, why not just shoot at it as someone else suggested?

BILL:
"You mention the possibility of the drone gathering evidence for a RAS or PC for a warrant. Think about that just a minute. If I have, let's say, a hookah that I keep on a small table in my bedroom on the second floor of my house, where it cannot be seen from the ground, but this thing is being used to spy on my neighbor (who is about to be served a warrant) or maybe just used by some FTO training his rookie and it IS seen, this could be described as "paraphernalia" and a warrant issued for my property. Never mind that the thing is either decorative or maybe even non-functional, its mere presence in my house could generate that RAS at a minimum. Is this a remote (pardon the pun) example? Sure it is, but it's the first one that came to mind (My sister and brother in law have an old hookah."

Paraphernalia is a misdemeanor unless you have a prior conviction, so no one is going to issue a warrant for your house. Lets go further though. Say you have 3 kilo's of suspected coke on the table. You still won't be able to find a judge to sign off on a warrant. They would have to get a CI to do several buys to prove you are dealing, have officers do buys as well, test the samples to prove it's coke then take that to a judge and hope he says that's enough. Keep in mind though that the SOP for helicopters is that they are constantly in circular motion and there is a "hard deck" that they can't go below while on an incident. SO in the off chance that while the rc helicopter is circling way above your house it catches a glimpse of your hookah, or cocaine, you don't have to worry about the cops kicking your door down.

 

[Zoub]

I fully believe that $4 vs $400 flights will inevitably lower the bar for probable cause on an individual to do surveillance.

Interesting. I tend to focus on the trigger pullers, not the trigger platform. I am not sure lower cost would equate to more violations of the 4th but sure enough, if it exists, it will be abused. That is human nature.

I don't think any of us like it when we ask soldiers to go into combat without proper tools and support, AKA Mogadishu. Who is not glad Les Aspen died young? LEO's running around in gangland areas at night deserve any advantage we can give them since we demand they contain that scourge and keep it out of our neighborhoods.

I say "our neighborhoods" because I doubt any posters in this thread sleep in the bathtub at night to avoid being hit by bullets from drive by shootings. Forty years ago where I lived in LA we had drug related drive by shootings and those homes now sell for $1 million plus. In many ways LEO's protect our property values more so then they do our lives............and we ask them to risk their lives to do it.

Once technology exists in our collective mind, it does not go away. From Abortion to A-Bombs.

The best possible training of LEO's on where ethics crosses the law would be good but frankly that does not seem to be an issue internalized by most bureaucrats.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm sure it's not operated with 2 fm crystals on an encrypted signal, but even if it were and you wanted to jam it, why not just shoot at it as someone else suggested?

BILL:
"You mention the possibility of the drone gathering evidence for a RAS or PC for a warrant. Think about that just a minute. If I have, let's say, a hookah that I keep on a small table in my bedroom on the second floor of my house, where it cannot be seen from the ground, but this thing is being used to spy on my neighbor (who is about to be served a warrant) or maybe just used by some FTO training his rookie and it IS seen, this could be described as "paraphernalia" and a warrant issued for my property. Never mind that the thing is either decorative or maybe even non-functional, its mere presence in my house could generate that RAS at a minimum. Is this a remote (pardon the pun) example? Sure it is, but it's the first one that came to mind (My sister and brother in law have an old hookah."

Paraphernalia is a misdemeanor unless you have a prior conviction, so no one is going to issue a warrant for your house. Lets go further though. Say you have 3 kilo's of suspected coke on the table. You still won't be able to find a judge to sign off on a warrant. They would have to get a CI to do several buys to prove you are dealing, have officers do buys as well, test the samples to prove it's coke then take that to a judge and hope he says that's enough. Keep in mind though that the SOP for helicopters is that they are constantly in circular motion and there is a "hard deck" that they can't go below while on an incident. SO in the off chance that while the rc helicopter is circling way above your house it catches a glimpse of your hookah, or cocaine, you don't have to worry about the cops kicking your door down.

So are judges the only ones capable of determining probable cause for a warrant? Is the job of the officer only to ask for the warrant and let the judge decide? Or are they responsible for weighing their individual actions against the constitution?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Well, shooting it would be effective, but jamming it would not be as obvious...

You could also jam it by simply leaving a jammer in the area... you would not even have to be present... no line of sight required either...

Considering how cheaply you could create a jammer if you first captured the frequency it operates on, you could build multiple jammers and just place them around the city before your big heist, or whatever (insert criminal thing)...

Blam, worthless drones city wide....

I know that sounds pretty far fetched.. but if used widespread, I think sooner or later it would happen...

 

[Zoub]

I know that sounds pretty far fetched.. but if used widespread, I think sooner or later it would happen...

No, you are correct. Point, Counterpoint is evolution.

My Dad spent much of his career bringing technology to combat. It killed the enemy and saved Americans. There were always issues with adaptation by certain individuals. They always died first. Then the enemy would adapt.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

THe first drone was used in 1973 by the israelis. Our military adopted the idea in 1990, they probably haven't figured it out in 40 years.

Regardless this isn't a "drone" its an RC helicopter with a FLIR camera on it. They're calling it a drone for all the call of duty MW3 types to get a boner over.

The first "modern" drones were used in 1982 in the Lebanon War, but they have been in development and used since WW I. The US mostly used them as target drones during WW II, and in a few instances the Navy used them in a similar way they currently use Cruise Missiles. In Vietnam, the Air Force used 3,435 drones, in mostly the reconnaissance role.

They have become popular in their current role due to shrinking budgets, and the expectation of providing more information to trigger pullers.

 

[rambone]

No, you are correct. Point, Counterpoint is evolution.

My Dad spent much of his career bringing technology to combat. It killed the enemy and saved Americans. There were always issues with adaptation by certain individuals. They always died first. Then the enemy would adapt.

You said it well. But in this case, the enemy is us.

The MIAC Report confirmed that we are all suspected terrorists - the enemy - so hopefully it is understandable when some here are less than thrilled when our government overlords employ new tactics for surveilling us. Its bad enough looking out for black helicopters. Now we gotta watch out for mother loving ShadowHawks..

 

[badwolf.usmc]

. Its bad enough looking out for black helicopters. Now we gotta watch out for mother loving ShadowHawks..

UAV Airships are in development by the military, they have greater loitering capabilities, some models can stay up for several weeks at a time. I would be more worried about those, they are silent and are so far up that you can't see them with the naked eye.

 

[IndySSD]

Wake me when the drones are running assassination missions.

yeah.... when the story doesn't even set off Rambone's "Radar", you're barking up the wrong tree

 

[rambone]

UAV Airships are in development by the military, they have greater loitering capabilities, some models can stay up for several weeks at a time. I would be more worried about those, they are silent and are so far up that you can't see them with the naked eye.

I made a thread about them one time but everybody assured me that Big Brother loved me and the drones were spying on us for own good.

 

[rambone]

The ShadowHawks are coming... the ShadowHawks are coming...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

OK, I'll play. What would be a legitimate LE use for this? Taken a step further, you said you "might" have a problem with such a thing being armed. What reasons would you consider valid for a police agency to have (using your examples) "machine guns, stinger missles, and grenade launchers" on it (or the more likely, machine guns and some type of gas grenade vs. explosive ordnance, i.e. a bomb of some kind) I can't see a reason that LE needs to be remotely launching ordnance against citizens. This is not a war zone. I understand you guys want to go home at the end of the shift and I can respect and support that. What I cannot support is the violation of your oath of office to make it happen. I understand that whenever you have rules, those who don't will find a way to take advantage of your limitations. What I don't understand is where the line is drawn once you start exceeding those limitations.

Example: You can search someone's car without a warrant because of the "plain sight" exception. If you can see something from someone's front door, you can act upon what you see. If you can smell something (or claim you can smell something) from within a car or house, you can act upon that claim. Right now, the line is drawn at a statement of "I smelled an odor consistent with (fill in blank here)".... and who can deny what you say you smelled? The potential for abuse is very high in this, even if you, as an honorable LEO do not abuse it yourself, if you think about it, you either know now or can recall someone you've met in your career who might have been less of a stickler on the practical applications of those rules. I am not asking you to confirm or deny that last supposition on my part. Just think about it, and I would be very surprised if you've never met someone meeting that description.

From what I've read of your posts, you're an ardent defender of your brethren and sisters in blue (or brown) and you stand on the principle of a man of honor. The down side to that, and the source of an old saying, "nice guys finish last" is that when you are a man of honor, it's hard to imagine someone in your same position who is not. It's offensive to think of someone treating in cavalier fashion those things so important to you... but as we all know, there are those people, even in positions of the highest trust. I've met medics I wouldn't trust with anything sharper than a Nerf ball. The one in particular I have in mind was drummed out when he administered unnecessary meds to a patient due to his own misdiagnosis. That was the last call I worked with him, and his last for our service (he is also no longer certified as even an EMT.) The relevant limitation on us is that we cannot knowingly incorrectly treat a patient. That is inviolable. So... Where's the line for LEOs? If your chief was to decide tomorrow that he wanted a drone.. wanted you as the operator, and was going to use it with a remote mic to spy on citizens not specifically suspected of any wrongdoing... Would you accept the assignment? Keep in mind that he's determined there is a legitimate use for it.. Someone, somewhere out there might be a terrorist, after all..

What it comes down to for me is not what the good, honorable officers will do with toys like this, but rather what those without scruples or honor will do without proper oversight... in other words, how could this thing be abused and how do we prevent that? The issue is not with cops, it's with people. Some people are not honorable, ergo, some of any subset of people will also not be.

Looking forward to your thoughts and response.

Blessings,
Bill

You folks have all missed the boat on these concerns: This is an unmanned HELICOPTER!!! Helicopters are already being used for law enforcement and your average TV news helicopter can already snoop onto your private property in the same ways as this drone - or a suitably equipped police helicopter - can do.

A couple other thoughts here: Conroe is 30 or 40 miles north of the Houston City Limits; it's a suburban county with lots of wooded areas in which there are housing and business complexes. It isn't Houston and it isn't, strictly speaking, an "urban area".

Although the manufacturer, according to the article, said the UAVs will be equipped with non-lethal weapons, the department in question denied planning to so-equip their UAV - and why would they do so? Non-lethal weapons are necessarily close-range weapons; why would a department want to expose an expensive asset to possible damage or destruction?

As to why the department might purchase a UAV (aside from the fact that the feds gave them the money), $300,000 might possibly buy a low-end helicopter, but it won't buy much and it won't pay for operating expenses, which will likely be much, much, more for a regular helicopter than for a UAV.

Residents of Conroe will probably not be much bothered by the idea of having a UAV in the sky over them, since they've had Army Reserve helicopters operating out of the Conroe airport for over 20 years. There are some safety issues of aircraft traffic deconfliction, but, again from the article, the local department has coordinated with the FAA for their share of the airspace - which realistically speaking is right on the treetops where no general aviation aircraft should be anyway.

I sort of understand why this article would upset someone like Rambone or mrjarrel, but I'm really surprised at the reactions of some of the rest of you, especially since we've had helicopters used in law enforcement over the skies of Indiana for 30 years or more.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

I made a thread about them one time but everybody assured me that Big Brother loved me and the drones were spying on us for own good.

Oh I'm assured they are spying on you. I've ordered a couple myself. We know what doughnut and coffee you ordered at dunkin donuts, and it has been put into the Database.