Aerial Drones To Help Cops In Miami

Catoonsis writes "Reuters is reporting that 'Miami police could soon be the first in the United States to use cutting-edge, spy-in-the-sky technology to beef up their fight against crime.' The police force is planning to make use of a small aerial drone, capable of hovering and quick maneuvers, to monitor the Miami-Dade area and alert officers of potential problems. The device, manufactured by Honeywell, is awaiting FAA approval before it can be put into use. This decision is just the latest chapter in the developing relationship between law enforcement and robotic assistants. 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been flying drones over the Arizona desert and southwest border with Mexico since 2006 and will soon deploy one in North Dakota to patrol the Canadian border as well. This month, Customs and Border Protection spokesman Juan Munoz Torres said the agency would also begin test flights of a modified version of its large Predator B drones, built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, over the Gulf of Mexico.'"

The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[DustyShadow]

There's a reason why the Predator stays over the desert. Predators have crashed numerous times [airforcetimes.com] and do not have FAA approval to fly over populated areas in the US. Do we really think this thing from Honeywell that most definitely has less flight time than the Predator is air-worthy enough to fly over a super populated area like Miami? If this thing crashes and kills someone, I hope the city is sued into oblivion.

Why the Canadian border?

[GroeFaZ]

To keep US citizens in?

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[TripMaster Monkey]

The device featured in the article only weighs 18 pounds fully loaded. While this weight plummeting from a height is sufficient to kill anyone directly below, the risk is much less than that of a Predator drone crashing and burning on the streets of Miami.

I'm more concerned about plans to have drones of this sort fitted with Taser rounds, myself.

Is it just me?

[zappepcs]

This is going to stop what kind of crime? Are they going to spot bank robbers in their hideout planning to rob banks? Are they going to stop illegals from going to work? What exactly are they planning to stop?

If it's drug crimes.. well, think of the children.... sigh

Oh wait!

"We intend to use this to benefit us in carrying out our mission," he added, saying the wingless Honeywell aircraft, which fits into a backpack and is capable of vertical takeoff and landing, seems ideally suited for use by SWAT teams in hostage situations or dealing with "barricaded subjects."

Clearly they are going to use it for drug busts... nice. Wonder where the police departments would spend all that money if they didn't have to fight drug crimes because some of them had been made legal? The espionage on private citizens elevates continuously in the war on drugs, war on crime, war on civil liberties without making anyone safer IMO. They already use helicopters, now this will put the capability of putting an eye in the sky in multiple locations without the expense of a helicopter and raise the danger level to ordinary citizens most likely.

Perhaps I'm cynical, but wasn't the last great advance for police forces the taser? Yep, that worked out pretty good, don't you think?

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

THIS is what makes it so obvious that all this "Homeland Security" is primarily *against U.S. Citizens*, not against external threats:

Canada is our FRIEND. Canada has not offered us violence, or a flood of illegal aliens, or a torrent of criminals, or anything worse than the occasional pot smuggler or draft-dodger haven. Canada has been our defense partner for decades, and is consistently our best friend in the world. That Canada is sometimes called "the 51st State" is not entirely a joke.

There is absolutely NO reason that Canadian/U.S. border control should be anything but a smile and a wave whether you're entering or leaving either country -- much as it was through all of the previous century.

The current situation, requiring a passport to visit Canada, tells me that it is WE THE PEOPLE who are regarded as Enemies of the State, and that any border surveillance is designed to keep us in, as much as to keep threats out.

Doesn't *anyone* remember the Iron Curtain or the Berlin Wall??

 

And so beings the drone wars

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If these drones become wide-spread, I predict that any sophisticated "bad guys" - i.e. drug runners and coyotes - will quickly get their own drones.

Maybe they won't be equipped with cameras, they'll probably be just run of the mill R/C helicopters. But they will be sufficient to take out any drones within visible range - just crash the R/C helicopter into the police drone to take it out of commission. If you miss, you just come back for another pass. Worst case, you keep the drone busy dodging the R/C helicopter instead of watching the goings on and best case you get a firey explosion in the sky. It will only take a few $500 R/C helicopter versus $50,000+ drone encounters before the police run out of drones.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[LoudMusic]

There is absolutely NO reason that Canadian/U.S. border control should be anything but a smile and a wave whether you're entering or leaving either country -- much as it was through all of the previous century.

It's pretty easy to get into Canada, especially from the north, and if you can get into Canada undetected it would then be pretty easy to get into the United States through Montana, North Dakota, or Minnesota.

The security departments aren't trying to protect the United States from Canadians - they're trying to protect the US from people who enter the US through Canada.

Have you ever played Risk, the board game? Just because you have an alliance with your neighbor doesn't mean some jackass can't storm through his territory and blitz your ass.

Deja vu all over again

[More_Cowbell]

I thought this sounded [slashdot.org] a bit familiar. [slashdot.org]

Has anyone heard any news on the LA ones, success or failure?

Personally, I'm not a big fan of more surveillance, though it seems inevitable. What politician (local or national) would stand up and say more cameras in (fill in the blank - schools, roads, public places, etc) is a bad idea. I mean it's all for our safety right? Think of the children and all that?

At least with the stationary cameras you know when you are being monitored.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[MicktheMech]

It's pretty easy to get into Canada, especially from the north

A.k.a. the Arctic. A bit more difficult than the Rio Grande, not to mention the only threat around the Pole is Russia. That's why we have NORAD. Also, any argument along this line applies equally to Alaska. Furthermore, there are two major vectors for illegal immigrants into Canada. Smugglers from China (which also applies to the U.S. West coast) and believe it or not, illegals entering through the U.S.

The security departments aren't trying to protect the United States from Canadians - they're trying to protect the US from people who enter the US through Canada.

Have you ever played Risk, the board game? Just because you have an alliance with your neighbor doesn't mean some jackass can't storm through his territory and blitz your ass.

This is complete rubish. The only practical effect of the heightened security has been to cost money and jobs on both sides of the border. The only explanation for why it's done is because politicians can score easy points on their "security" record to tout in the next election. Unfortunately it seems to work because most Americans appear to believe that every border is the Mexican border.

Just to top it off, one of the biggest domestic issues here is how to deal with guns being smuggled in from the U.S.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[JrOldPhart]

Legalize it. Tax it.

Legal items are much more easily controlled. Just like the end of prohibition ended most of the black market for liquor.

Frog gigging

[Ethanol-fueled]

What happens when you cut its strings(jam the signal)? Will it have a hover failsafe, or will it fall straight to the ground? That could become a new sport similar to frog giggin' [wikipedia.org]: first you jam the signal(shine the flashlight into its eyes), then you spear it(shoot it down). You could then cook it in a fire or mount it on the wall as a trophy.

Article on one page, not 3!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN1929797920080326 [reuters.com]
I wish article submitters, or the editors, would publish stuff on /. linking to the 1 page versions of articles. That whole trick of spreading an article over many pages just for ad impressions is just BS!

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[electrictroy]

They wouldn't need these drones if they Decriminalized drugs and made them available via doctor's prescription.

The drug runners business would dry up.

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[scubamage]

When you have to show your ID to go down the street, get validation from the US central database about your working at your current employer, and have every conversation logged and picked apart by the government you'll be thinking, "man, maybe those ACLU guys were right..." when someone comes to black bag you.

But its ok, because the 'war on crime,' 'war on drugs,' and war on 'terrorism' will justify it... nevermind the fact that you can't really win a war on an idea.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[TheGavster]

I've always said that CVS is a lot less likely to stage a driveby shooting of Walgreens than Racially Neutral Name 1 is to stage a driveby of Racial Neutral Name 2's illicit drug operation.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[cayenne8]

"The only danger is that they decide to expand the program and start having these things all over the place. Or what if they use them to videotape people peacefully protesting to get a list of "trouble makers" for the FBI to keep tabs on."

What do you mean "if"?

The list of laws and powers that have NOT been escalated and used far beyond their original intent is a very short one indeed.

If they get these, I can assure you they will expand the program to catch all the terrorists, and child abductors. I mean...you wouldn't be against that would you? Sure....we'll just leave them up all the time, all over the place, just in case...

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[muellerr1]

Your post smells trollish, but I'll answer anyway. The ACLU statement was that they'd like to see the use of these things regulated so they aren't used to violate your rights. They are not categorically opposed to its use.

The goal of the ACLU isn't to make it easier to commit crimes, it is to ensure that you don't lose your rights to the pursuit of criminals. Sure, a police state would be easier to run and traditional crime might plummet, but is that really the kind of country you want to call your own?

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Omestes]

They wouldn't need these drones if they Decriminalized drugs and made them available via doctor's prescription.

Off topic, but one problem with this; I really doubt that most people do drugs for health problems, though those that do should probably get them, granting that full medical studies would be needed. I really don't see my average pothead freind going to a doctor, then a pharmacy just to get a bag of weed he could probably still got on the street cheaper.

I say cheaper, since it seems classifying drugs as pharmacudicals would raise the price, just look at the average cost of American prescriptions.

I think in the dim possibility of legalized drugs they should be handled like alcohol in the states that still have state governed distribution, or like the shops in Amersterdam.

That said, I rather doubt the wisdom of legalizing ALL drugs, pot probably should be legal, but heroin less so. We should definatly not go after users though, and basically decriminalize small quanities of drugs so we can instead focus more on the supply chain, clear up the people that don't belong in our prison system, and divert some man power to keeping the druggies safe (clean needle exchange, better rehab and treatment programs, etc..), at least.

Back on topic: I don't know whether to put on my tinfoil hat or not on this story. The police already have plenty of survelience in the air in the form of helicopters, adding unmanned drones doesn't seem that big of a move. That said, helicopters generally go where the crime is, instead of generalized survalience, if these drones acted the same way I wouldn't worry. But if they hover around looking for crime, then I worry.

Why, also, do the police need drones? I can see in combat situations where they exist to keep the pilots out of danger (dead technology is worth less than dead people), but I don't see this true in metropolitan areas. I don't think Floridian cities are so crime ridden as to the point where the criminals have an ample supply of shoulder-fired missles. How many police helicopters have been shot down in Miami in the last ten years?

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Some_Llama]

"The drug runners business would dry up."

As well as gangs and their warfare. Why doesn't anyone else see this when reports of gang violence on the rise is shown nightly on the news?

Oh yah because our own government has a media campaign aimed at convincing us that drug use makes you a bad person (unless it's pharmaceutical, then it's fine, esp for wieners).

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[easyTree]

Your government wants you to be afraid of the gangs - that way you'll turn to them for help and they can exploit you (at the very least financially) in the name of helping you. If they wanted a peaceful and caring society for all, there would be one.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[armada]

Fact: I have never met someone that does not do drugs because they are illegal. Fact: I do not do drugs quite simply because the risk/reward ratio is not appealing to me. And by risk I mean health risk not jail risk. Full disclosure, I race offroad and supersport motorcycles. In that case risk/reward works out for me. Note to self (I live in Miami) I wonder what the range of my paintball gun is when fired stright up?