The FAA Reauthorizarion Act will order the FAA to develop regulations for drone use in the U.S. FAA will not name agencies currently certified for drones currently in use in undisclosed locations. Does this presage any future problems with privacy law?
Gov’t agencies already use aircraft for law enforcement. I can’t really see why the people using those aircrafts operating them by remote would open up any issues that weren’t already presented by the manned aircraft.
Live, at 5! Traffic reports brought to you by our “eye in the sky”!
I can see drones eventually being used just as news choppers are used now, when the price comes down.
Because they’re drones, drones are scary, like monsters, or Imperial stormtroopers. Grrr! Drones!
That’s generally my take on it. There may be an issue of quantity, though. The cost of aircraft keeps their use relatively rare; drones may be cheap enough that surveillance could drastically increase.
I don’t see that that presents any constitutional issues, but it may be something people are politically uncomfortable with.
On the other hand, if there were extremely inexpensive videodrones that could have stations atop every tenth telephone pole (for example), and could be activated in the event of a crime in progress to track fugitives, that might be pretty great for law enforcement.
Yes equipment responsible for the death of hundreds of innocent people could potentially be scary. Especially flying over my head.
Airplanes are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and are currently flying over your head.
If we’re talking about armed drones zipping by overhead, then sure, that’s not copacetic. But I’m pretty sure nobody’s talking about that, any more than most police aircraft in the US are equipped with hellfire missiles.
The issue isn’t safety, it’s surveillance.
Why?
Is there a rash of privacy violations involving helicopters?
Do you think drones are “less safe” in terms of privacy violations? After all, you can’t stop that police helicopter from flying overhead either.
Look at my first post in the thread for the “why”: it’s about quantity.
For comparison, look at England’s profligacy of surveillance cameras. They do a lot of amazing police work with that network of cameras, but it doesn’t seem to be something that’s catching on in the US. I think that similar discomfort with widespread surveillance might be an issue with a large network of drones.
I’m not saying I’m uncomfortable with it; honestly I haven’t made up my mind. Rather, I’m trying to explore what might constitute legitimate objections to drones.
Anybody who read the article have an explanation for why a lawsuit is necessary to see information on the government agencies currently certified to use drones?
Maybe it would be useful to know how they’re being used.
Good god, what is with that terrible website layout? [edit: it seems to have something to do with the “m” that precedes the url. This link is the same story, only readable.]
Anyway, I’m not sure why the lawsuit is necessary, but it’s something I see all the time in news reports: it seems that it’s very common for a FOIA lawsuit to be required in order to get the gummint to give up secrets.
Too late to edit: Here’s an overview of the FOIA process. It’s very possible that DHS or someone said, “Sorry, this list would impact national security,” and the EFF was unsatisfied with that response.
Just discounting the usual political nosense, lies, halftruths, etc… We gave ummm many trillions away in the “too big to fail” Big Bailout. Supposedly all our programs are busted broke. We are supposedly broke, doomed, no money for programs. Social Security is broken. Welfare is draining us. We can’t afford to sustain unemployment, or any semblance of healthcare, or (according to some guys) ANY sort of safety net. They’re stealin’ our jerbs".
So where is all this money for drones going to come from, and just what is it that “Big Gubmint” wants to watch so badly, and why do they want to watch whatever it is? Whose cousin or brother or crony owns the drone company? Whose state or county gets the pork barrel? WHERE DOES ALL THIS MONEY MAGICALLY COME FROM AND WHERE DOES IT GO TO? WHO ARE WE WATCHING AND WHY?
I smell bullshit in the pile somewhere, I’m just not sure where the turd actually is.
But I don’t understand the difference, constitutionally speaking, between a manned (helicopter) and unmanned (drone) aircraft. Either could be “abused” by the government to invade the privacy of the citizenry.
As I am reasonably certain that state and Federal courts would take the position that law enforcement (or the military) can operate helicopters over privately held land in the course of their duties, and I predict that drones would also be allowed to overfly private land.
Law enforcement already has several devices much cheaper than drones that can be used to snoop at private property. (I think there was a case involving infrared cameras and pot growers.) When they are caught using such devices illegally/inappropriately, like without a warrant, they get slapped down by the court.
I do not believe that drones would make it “easier” or “more likely” for law enforcement or the military to snoop on people, as many methods (and cheaper methods) already exist for that.
I agree. Not to be snarky, but that’s why, in the post I referred you back to, I wrote, “I don’t see that that presents any constitutional issues.”
So that’s not the issue.
The follow-up part of that sentence–“but it may be something people are politically uncomfortable with”–is what I think is worth discussing. Do you agree with that?
In other words, it’s not an issue for the courts, probably, but rather one for the legislature.
:smack: Nope. Missed that part.
No. If you don’t trust the government, then you don’t trust them whether it’s choppers, man-portable infrared scanners, or drones. I don’t see a difference.
Abuses are [occasionally] made with cops in choppers. Abuses are made [rarely] with scanners. So, it follows, abuses will be made [maybe occasionally, maybe rarely] with drones.
I personally do not find unmanned aircraft any more emotionally scary than the police chopper circling over my neighborhood with it’s searchlight on.
I agree that a state, county, or city level government can restrict the use of any device or procedure within it’s own jurisdiction, and I’m fine with that.
Yes. Here in L.A. they recently changed flight rules to prevent helicopters from constantly flying slowly over the homes of celebrities.
Ah. The golden rule. 
Wait–you’re disagreeing that it may be something people are politically uncomfortable with? Or you’re disagreeing that any such discomfort is worth discussing?
If, by chance, you’ve misread again ;), you may simply be disagreeing with said political discomfort. And I might agree with you; I haven’t made up my mind. I’m trying to figure out where there might be legitimate discussion, since I don’t think there is any in the constitutional realm.
And your example with cops in choppers is, I think, off-base. The issue with drones is that they could end up being really freakin’ cheap, and therefore far more common than cops in choppers (which are really freakin’ expensive).
Go back to the example of the ubiquitous British surveillance camera. Do you think that’s politically feasible here in the US? If not, do you think there’s any possibility of an analogous situation here?