UK Police Plan To Use Military-Style Spy Drones 390
krou writes "According to documents obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act, the UK police plan on deploying unmanned drones in the UK to 'revolutionize policing' and extend domestic 'surveillance, monitoring and evidence gathering,' which will be used in 'the routine work of the police, border authorities and other government agencies.' The documents come from the South Coast Partnership, 'a Home Office-backed project in which Kent police and others are developing a national drone plan' in conjunction with BAE Systems. The stated aim is to introduce the system in time for the 2012 Olympics. Initially, Kent police stated that the system would be used to monitor shipping lanes and illegal immigrants, but the documents reveal that this was part of a PR strategy: 'There is potential for these [maritime] uses to be projected as a "good news" story to the public rather than more "big brother."' However, the documents talk about a much wider range of usage, such as '[detecting] theft from cash machines, preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving,' as well as 'road and railway monitoring, search and rescue, event security and covert urban surveillance.' Also, due to the expense involved, it has also been suggested that some data could be sold off to private companies, or the drones could be used for commercial purposes."
Slipperly Slope (Score:1, Insightful)
Missing Tag (Score:4, Insightful)
1984
Big Brother? (Score:4, Insightful)
But Big Brother wasn't bad, he was always there to protect you...to watch out for you. He would never hurt you.
What is really amazing isn't that they're implementing this system, it's that their rhetoric is so very similar to that from 1984. They don't call the system or the watchers big brother, but they tell you that it's for your protection, only bad people have anything to fear, and generally have a nearly indistinguishable attitude about it. The only difference is the name. But not many actually read 1984 I suppose (from the general populace, geeks here not included) so most people I imagine don't realize the similarities in rhetoric.
This is obviously a bad thing, and makes me very cautious about even wanting to enter the UK. Yikes.
Commercial purposes? (Score:4, Insightful)
'[detecting] theft from cash machines, preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving,'
They're either going to have tens of thousands of them or hoping to get really lucky.
Also, due to the expense involved, it has also been suggested that some data could be sold off to private companies, or the drones could be used for commercial purposes
So we'll see TV shows featuring footage captured by drones?
Google might buy it too but if its targeting people it'll make obscuring faces harder.
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with a drone recording it.
I would. It would be fun if the public gets access to the video recordings.
I'd set up a website offering a £1000 prize for the first beating caught on video.
Re:Missing Tag (Score:5, Insightful)
and Blue Thunder
Why not arm them while we are at it, after all its for the children.
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:3, Insightful)
What is a bit troubling is that we know that some of the military drones have infrared capability - so it would be possible in theory for one of these drones to be equipped with the same capability, allowing it to look directly into buildings and homes.
Huh? Infrared doesn't go through walls the last time I checked. You can look at a home with an IR camera and figure out other stuff -- like if they have any strange heat sources that suggest illegal grow operations -- but you can't "look directly" into buildings with it.
That's not to say I'm defending this. I think it's disgusting and yet another sad example of the sheepification of the people that gave us most of our civil liberties.
Then: Open!=Overheard. Now: Open=Overheard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Recording every inch of public space is (and should be) different from policing public space. At least that's how I see it. We want to keep down crime but we also want people to carry on their lives without everything being dissected and analyzed. Public privacy/anonymity may already be a myth but we don't need to help things along by supporting universal surveillance.
Police Helicopters (Score:3, Insightful)
Apart from being far cheaper and safer, how is this different from police helicopters they already use and have been using for over twenty years?
Re:Good thing they took your guns away. (Score:2, Insightful)
If Homeland Security tried to spy on us with drones, it would become a sport to shoot them down. And they WOULD go down, too. Lots of expensive wreckage.
But I guess they'd have footage of the culprit who shot it down and let him pay for the expensive wreckage...
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes this standard can be extended quite far, but as long as we draw a line at the required physical bugging of private property, I'm okay with it.
Which merely means that by the time they do decide that they're going to install cameras in your house, you won't be able to do anything to stop them.
Opposing a slippery slope is much easier at the top than at the bottom where it's approaching with the momentum of a thirty-ton truck with a rocket on the back.
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
On the surface, this does not seem like a bad idea.
It seems like a bad idea to me. I don't like being spied on by my government. Of course, I'm against having secret police* in a "free" society, too. Cops should be visible and wear distinctive uniforms driving distinctive vehicles.
* In the US, the secret police are called "undercover agents", "plainclothesmen", and "DEA". Laws that make victimless crimes are an excuse for having secret police in the first place, and should be repealed.
Re:Good thing they took your guns away. (Score:5, Insightful)
I love Big Brother (Score:4, Insightful)
Strong and peaceful, wise and brave, Fighting the fight for the whole world to save, We the people will ceaselessly strive To keep our great revolution alive! Unfurl the banners! Look at the screen! Never before has such glory been seen! Oceania! Oceania! Oceania, 'tis for thee! Every deed, every thought, 'tis for thee! Every deed, every thought, 'tis for thee! Every deed, every thought, 'tis for thee!
Re:Good thing they took your guns away. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the United States, we'll shoot at helicopters with actual people in them. If Homeland Security tried to spy on us with drones, it would become a sport to shoot them down. And they WOULD go down, too. Lots of expensive wreckage.
As much as I love the 2nd amendment, you do realize that most small arms top out at 10,000 feet and these drones fly around 20,000 feet or higher, right?
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:2, Insightful)
Oops.. I meant to say first beating by police caught on video.
Little is revealed of the UK's rule outside of Earth, but it is thought that they control worlds in different dimensions and inhabited with a range of species. The UK occupation of Earth, however, is shown to be a brutal police state. In London, a generic European city, Civil Protection units are seen frequently, often conducting random searches of apartment blocks, interrogating human citizens and engaging in random police brutality. The military Overwatch forces of the UK are shown attacking human resistance bases in an effort to further solidify their control. The citizens themselves are all clad in blue uniforms and live in designated apartment blocks. Citizens are shown to be moved around to different cities or locales at the UK's will, using passenger trains. Vortigaunts are also shown to have been enslaved, and are observed in various jobs such as janitors. UK is draining Earth's natural resources, including the sea, to be used on other UK-controlled worlds.
At the heart of the UK's command structure is the Citadel, an enormous structure that reaches high into the skyline and delves deep underground. Located within London, the Citadel serves as the primary headquarters of the UK, housing both UK Advisors and the office of the Earth administrator, Wallace Breen. Breen is frequently seen on large screens around the city from which he spreads propaganda. The Citadel projects an energy field that is able to prevent human reproduction, as well as a field that keeps dangerous alien wildlife out of the city. In addition, the Citadel contains a trans-dimensional teleporter which allows UK to travel between their native universe and Earth. The Citadel also contains construction facilities for various synthetic UK combat machines.
Re:There's Only One Way To Boil A Frog (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a second way to boil a frog: knock it over the head before you toss it in the pot.
Anyway, who boils frogs?
Even less effective than street level cameras? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I guess this had to happen. Full fail for street level cameras for billions, so the only option left is to go full retard.
One cannot even argue that this is a responsible use of public funds:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6082530/1000-CCTV-cameras-to-solve-just-one-crime-Met-Police-admits.html
Of course, tourist photos must be deleted though, you know, in the name of public safety. Where is the "shake my head in disbelief" animated icon again?
Re:Police Helicopters (Score:4, Insightful)
I would guess the cameras are very steady and will have much better vision than human eyes from 500ft.
Helicopters are also usually out assisting ground units in specific cases. Meaning, the ground units need an eye above them for a _limited_ amount of time to track a fleeing suspect or to just keep an eye open in the even a situation they are engaging in turns into a chase situation (IE: meth lab bust, etc).
Drones can just go up and stay up. They aren't there to follow chases and they aren't there to provide lighting. Drones can simply stay up recording anything a controlling officer finds interesting to look at.
Basically, helicopters are specific use and drones are whatever the camera operator wants it to be.
At least, that's the way I see it.
Instead of selling the data, sell the drone (Score:3, Insightful)
the undersides and such or have it tow a big big banner.
This Surveillance Drone is sponsored by Big Brother, MTV 7pm daily.
More than likely the revenue model will be new crimes for which there is a nice monetary penalty attached. Perhaps we can combine this with the Global Warming cabal and fine people for barbecue grills or too much outdoor lighting.
Let's gather MORE info that can be hacked (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to data:
To PROTECT it,
Don't COLLECT it.
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is a terrible idea for citizens, and whoever modded you insightful doesn't live in the UK. Past experience suggests that if you give an inch, they take a mile. Terror laws were introduced on the understanding that they would not be abused. Guess what? They were abused, and not just by the police harassing legitimate protesters, photographers, and just every day civilians. Councils used terror laws to justify snooping on people suspected of lying about where they lived [bbc.co.uk] so they could get their child into a local school, spying on suspected litterbugs, and spying on council employees. There's plenty other cases documenting the systematic exploitation of these laws.
The mere fact that these iditos knew full well there would be a public outcry, and that they should focus on shipping lanes and illegal immigrants in order to spin this, should sending warning bells across the UK. It's quite clear that the police view activists and legitimate protesters as "domestic extremists [guardian.co.uk]", so there's only one reason they want the capabilities of these drones: They're lying bastards who want to infiltrate what little privacy we have left in our lives even further to make us live in fear, and to stifle dissent.
Re:Commercial purposes? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the UK, the hoodie [wikipedia.org] serves that purpose, and has grown in popularity pretty much in parallel with the deployment of CCTV in the cities.
Quantum patrolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:2, Insightful)
I meant a picture from one of your devices looking through a wall. That's just a sales website. Interestingly enough though it lists the capabilities of the device and doesn't claim that it can see through walls.
The Phantom IR allows users to observe the heat signatures of people and objects at extreme ranges in daylight or at night, and through smoke, fog or camouflage.
I'm calling bullshit on IR passing through walls unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.
Re:Missing Tag (Score:3, Insightful)
More appropriately, airstripone
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a good thing that airborne drone cameras fly at street level so they can't see into privacy-fenced yards, then.
Oh, they don't? Hmmm...is that another exception to the logical and clear limit?
I think this is the part where you say something like "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."
Re:Big Brother? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have more choices than "government that never interferes" and "government that controls your life". There are shades of grey possible here.
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are some examples:
Yard has a privacy fence, the couple enjoys outdoor sex and without the drone spying on them they could do it in the privacy of their back yard.
Having a party, someone brings a joint. You and your social circle don't mind, but the eye in the sky does.
You can't make it to a restroom, nobody is around, you duck in the bushes and relieve yourself, but the eye in the sky sees.
You're driving down the interstate and there aren't any cars on a strait away, you can see clearly for several miles and see the median is clear of enforcement officers the entire length of the strait away. You think to yourself, I wonder how fast my car can go. You tap your car out. Nobody was around and nobody cares, except for the eye in the sky.
There are lots of things we do everyday that are completely safe, nothing morally wrong with doing, and don't cause harm to anyone; yet there are laws against them. Under normal circumstances we obey the laws to make the watchers happy, because we know they aren't watching all the time. But we still all break some laws some of the time. Jaywalking. If we had 100% surveillance all the time we wouldn't be safer, we'd probably go insane.
Re:Eeek (Score:1, Insightful)
Probable Cause, lol , in the UK they can stop and search whomever or when ever they wish, using jumped up intepritation of section 44 of the terrorism act (note no anti-) ........ Anonymous Coward for obvious reasons
Re:Commercial purposes? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're gonna lose too many UK residents with that kind of terminology. Tell them it's good for keeping the rain out of their shirts.
Re:CCTV metrics (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect that the main motive in these drones is some company making a profit. Crime did not drop with CCTV cameras so all they really accomplish it to make a couple of people who were already rich, richer.
This is the reasoning behind red-light cameras in the US, as well. A private "contractor" installs and supports the cameras. Said contractor also gets a cut of the ticket "revenue."
Oftentimes, the contractor convinces the locality to shorten the yellow light period, making more people run the red light. In other words, red light cameras simply impose an additional tax on the populace.
Re:Big Brother? (Score:4, Insightful)
You left out police department, fire department, EMS, contract enforcement and a standing military.
No one has suggest that the government can protect you from everything. But it has to protect you from some things. Even the staunchest Libertarian would agree that the government sbould enforce contracts, and probably go farther than that. Therefore, the question is where the line should be drawn. I understand the emotional appeal of drawing a "nothing" line, but since you no doubt don't really believe that, please explain to me what the determining factor should, and leave the strawman at home.
Wait, you don't think the government should protect children from molesters? Really? I must have read that wrong.
Maybe you object to certain tactics, but I think everyone has to agree with the goal.
Stravation seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to protect against in children as well. Should they have to drop out of school and work in a sweatshop?
Poor U.K. (Score:2, Insightful)
I've nothing but sympathy for the people of the U.K. They can't have guns to counter extreme government. They are taxed to the hilt to pay for their own persecution. They've put up with this and more for years while dealing with social class as being somehow important. Yet they seem ,by and large to remain fairly jolly and rationalize their sodomizing by the government as necessary for all.
Humans long to live free with government playing a small role. The U.K., Australia, Canada and soon the U.S. are the opposite of this.
Perhaps we should stage a world revolution at some point, overthrow the lot of them and just start over. If not for ourselves, then for those to come.
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Big Brother? (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't like it when the police have guns and camera's pointed at your privacy any more than I like having guns pointed at my wallet.
The argument is exactly the same. The sad thing is, you're unable to realize it.
A state that is capable of giving you everything you want, is capable of taking everything you have. Which is why a limited government is best.
I have a simple question I ask people like yourself. Who gets to decide what level of "Welfare" is appropriate and why? Your answer will betray your own cause (and it doesn't matter what you say).
Re:Missing Tag (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly, that's one way the UK is notably *ahead* of other countries - the police aren't routinely armed. When I visited the US or other countries where armed police are routine, there was a noticeable uneasy feeling. It's a rather more obvious expression of state power over the individual than a camera - a camera can't kill you.
The surveillance still sucks, of course. It's not as pervasive as the stories on Slashdot suggest, but there's still more than enough.
Re:Big Brother? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is obviously a bad thing, and makes me very cautious about even wanting to enter the UK. Yikes.
As opposed to being fingerprinted, photographed and grilled when entering the US? Full marks for creating a great first impression there guys -- followed up by gun toting police all over the place Pot meet kettle !!
Re:Quantum patrolling (Score:4, Insightful)
"How about we get some cameras and record what happens, then in court we can just use the videos as evidence."
And why would we need video in court unless in adds to the officer testimony? We already have the officers sworn testimony. The video can be deleted after the officer writes the report. This is how it happens in interrogations already and it is perfectly legal. Why would it be any different for video.
The police have the best of both worlds in many cases. If the evidence backs them up, preserve it. If it is less than ideal, write it up and discard it because it isn't needed.
Re:Slipperly Slope (Score:3, Insightful)
Those activities can be combatted without secret police. As can murder, rape, theft...
Re:Good thing they took your guns away. (Score:3, Insightful)
However you neglect to mention death and injury from drones falling out of the sky. I doubt people will take pot shots at UAVs in the UK, however a cheap laserpointer would render it blind or cause it crash.
This would not go down well stateside, first lawsuit and it's all over.
Re:it HAS been true the last ten thousand years (Score:1, Insightful)
That's hardly an excuse to justify the tax-funded equivalent of stalking. There's a reason why stalking is illegal for you and me, and it should damn well be illegal for government too.
Lets screw drivers AGAIN (Score:5, Insightful)
>> a much wider range of usage, such as '[detecting] theft from cash machines, preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving,'
Ahh the truth will out. Has there been an country-wide epidemic of tractor thefts recently? Is it practical to use an aircraft that can't hover to surveil ATMs? I think not. Now guess which one they REALLY want drones for.
I really can't imagine that our wonderful police would generate all those lame excuses just to cover up that they really just want drones as yet another way to generate even more revenue from drivers that momentarily stray over already devisively low speed limits. Surely not.
When will the police actually go after real criminals instead of finding new and devious ways to repeatedly bully soft targets like us road users?
Re:Eeek (Score:1, Insightful)
For starters, jaywalking is an american thing, where cars are considered more important than people.
In the UK you can walk on the street if you want. Except for those new-fangled motorways that they put up in the 20th century.
Other non-crimes or differences from US include simple trespass, gambling (over 16 or 18 I'm not sure), sex (over 16), drinking (over 18, was 16 when with a meal) and prostitution (over 18, was 16).
Of course the government and local councils have pushed back on that recently with "ASBO"s which can turn non-crimes into crimes..., and new crimes have been added, like smoking (just about anywhere).
Your description sounds like every hollywood film about cops in small town america with nothing better to do than harass outsiders.
Is this really it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this really what my grandad fought to defend with is life in world war 2?
Jaywalking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of people are using jaywalking as an example non-crime in these comments. Just so you all know, jaywalking is not generally against UK law; the only places you can't do it are motorways (where anyone going less than 50mph will cause problems), railway crossings while the barrier is down, and small patches of road next to lit pedestrian crossings. Everywhere else, it's your judgement.
Now, for the technology itself, I think it will help catch a lot of minor criminals, rural fly-tippers, and an unexpectedly large number of farm-animal-fancying zoophiles, but it will have very little effect on organised crime. Why? Dazzle from small lasers. What's the cost of a CD/DVD burner?
I don't like perfect surveillance - this country has too many laws for any one person to know, so I have no idea if I'm breaking any or not.
Re:Poor U.K. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you have a misunderstanding of what it is like to live in Britain. Where did you get your information from? Have you actually lived here?
Re:Big Brother? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have 4 mod points, but I've just got to reply to this.
All the things the GP listed (bar one) are organised by the distant and (from a view point here over the ocean) corrupt as hell, inefficient US Federal Government.
All the things you list (bar one) are controlled by the various local and state governments.
I keep seeing this argument where one person lists massively corrupt, inefficient, and in many cases hurtful Federal programs they want scrapped and instantly others spring up and thinking that they're oh so witty turn on the sarcasm..."ohoh and roads and police and the military too!" thinking that they are ever so clever...not seeing the absolute ignorance they are displaying to the whole world about their own countries system of governance...
Here's a lesson from a foreigner, your state governments are responsible for building roads, the police and ambulance.
Your Federal Governments number one job is a common defence of the States, rather than each state having a standing army, they all pool their resources and have just one big one. It's number two job is making sure that the states play nice with each other. That is pretty much the entirety of the purpose the states created it for.
It's the Federal Government now thinking it can *do anything it wants* that small government types have 99% of a problem with.
Perhaps you and the dimwits who modded you up should go and learn a little bit about Federalism and the foundation upon which it was built. Hint: it wasn't an all powerful single central government that can do anything it wants.
Re:What a racist comment (Score:3, Insightful)
Racism is not the same as being wrong, you can be a racist and right at the same time.
Besides there is a large gray area between racism and being culturally invaded.