Drone bill clears both chambers
Friday, May 9, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* SB2937 passed the House unanimously today and now goes to the governor. From the synopsis…
Provides that except as provided in the Act, a law enforcement agency may not acquire information from or direct the acquisition of information through the use of a drone owned by a private third party. Provides that in the event that law enforcement acquires information from or directs the acquisition of information through the use of a privately owned drone under the Act, any information so acquired is subject to the retention and disclosure requirements of the Act. Provides that nothing in the Act prohibits private third parties from voluntarily submitting information acquired by a privately owned drone to law enforcement. Provides that in the event that law enforcement acquires information from the voluntary submission of that information whether under a request or on a private drone owner’s initiative, the information is subject to the retention and disclosure requirements of the Act.
Senate Committee Amendment No. 1
Allows use of a drone without a search warrant, if a law enforcement agency is using a drone during a disaster or public health emergency. The use of a drone does not require an official declaration of a disaster or public health emergency prior to use. The drone may be used to obtain information necessary for the determination of whether or not a disaster or public health emergency should be declared, to monitor weather or emergency conditions, to survey damage, or to otherwise coordinate response and recovery efforts. The use of a drone is permissible during the disaster or public health emergency and during subsequent response and recovery efforts. Disaster and public health emergency have the meaning as defined by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act.
* From the ACLU…
With today’s vote on Senate Bill 2937, Illinois soon will have some of the most far-reaching regulation of the use of drones by law enforcement in the nation. This new bill builds on last year’s enacted law, and ensures that law enforcement cannot simply turn to the growing army of private drone operators to conduct surveillance and evade the current law’s regulations. We hope the Governor will quickly add these protections to Illinois law.
The emerging drone technology is a powerful surveillance tool. We must ensure that our laws keep current with this advancing technology in order to protect privacy in our state. This measure is consistent with our commitment to this process.
Discuss.
- Capo - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 11:28 am:
Don’t often agree with the ACLU but occasionally they get it right.
- Allen Skillicorn - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 11:31 am:
This was the Biss bill, right?
Now we need to prevent warrant-less cell phone searches.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 11:32 am:
What are you looking for with drone surveillance? Weed plants?
- Ghost - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 11:33 am:
So we can put cameras everywhere, without restircition generally so long as it is a fixed mount…. but mount a camera to a drone and we have all kinds of limitaitions on its use?
So cost wise we need to use helicopters or hundreds of fixed mount cameras. if the idea is to make government operations as expensive and inefficient as possible this is a great bill.
if it is a privacy concern why do we not limt the use of cameras on say a google map car, fixed camera and cameras attached to a manned vehicle?
Just looks like a reactionary feeld good bill that accomplishes nothing but keeping law enforcement costs high and efficiency hobbled.
after all, in the age of sattelites who think that what they are doing outside is going unobserved.
- LizPhairTax - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 12:13 pm:
I want my privacy protected at all costs! I just posted about that on Facebook when I checked in at Andiamo on four square. Catch me on twitter #thatshiphassailed.
- Anonymous - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 12:29 pm:
Press release makes it sound like Illinois law enforcement was using this stratagem to get around the law. They weren’t and they haven’t.
Solution looking for a problem.
- Norseman - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 12:38 pm:
How about putting a 30 second limit on hovering over someone’s house. If the drone exceeds that time limit, the homeowner is authorized to shoot it down with a radio guided anti-drone missile. RNUG, you want to help me develop this much needed technology?
- MrJM - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 12:44 pm:
“Press release makes it sound like Illinois law enforcement was using this stratagem to get around the law. They weren’t and they haven’t.”
And if you can’t trust Illinois law enforcement…
– MrJM
- Bigtwich - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 12:48 pm:
“I want my privacy protected at all costs! I just posted about that on Facebook when I checked in at Andiamo on four square. Catch me on twitter #thatshiphassailed.”
Like
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 12:50 pm:
=== I just posted about that on Facebook when I checked in at Andiamo===
That has to be the goofiest thing in comments this week.
Equating telling things about yourself to government surveillance?
Really?
- Demoralized - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 1:15 pm:
Count me in the extreme minority camp of people who don’t give a hoot about things like this. I could care less if the government is looking at me with a drone. They will be bored to death.
- MrJM - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 1:22 pm:
“Count me in the extreme minority camp of people who don’t give a hoot about things like this. I could care less if the government is looking at me with a drone. They will be bored to death.”
I always presume that people with this attitude either have no friends or family, or that they just don’t care about them.
– MrJM
- Demoralized - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 1:25 pm:
==I always presume that people with this attitude either have no friends or family, or that they just don’t care about them.==
That’s just a dopey comment.
I have far more important things to worry about. I’m sorry but this sort of stuff just doesn’t rile me up. You can make snarky remarks all you want.
- BMAN - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 1:49 pm:
I got nothing to hide but if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
- Norseman - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 2:22 pm:
MrJM, I have great respect for your comments, however, this last comment was a little over-the-top. I’ve had days when my personal filter failed for a bit. I trust this was a slight glitch on your part.
While I was being snarky before, the biggest concern I would have with a drone is if it was hovering over my property for extended periods of time. The only offense a drone might catch me on is speeding. Frankly, I’m more concerned with nanny-state laws than drones flown by cops.
- oz - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 2:56 pm:
“So we can put cameras everywhere, without restircition generally so long as it is a fixed mount…. but mount a camera to a drone and we have all kinds of limitaitions on its use?”
Great observation!
This should protect the clouted camera companies with Chicago contracts. The city is all about protecting the elite connected corporations preventing competition, entrepreneurship, and new business.
- oz - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 3:04 pm:
Passing a law is one thing.
Enforcing a law is another.
How many laws are already on the books designed to make taxpayers feel safe and/or protected however when push comes to shove they are ignored and/or not enforced.
Examples.
Second amendment gun rights.
Illegal immigration enforcement.
Constitutional protections on pensions.
Free speech zones.
To name a few. The lists go on and on.
- LizPhairTax - Friday, May 9, 14 @ 3:06 pm:
I won! I won!
Sorry Rich, I should’ve expounded more. I’m definitely not equating the two. My not-as-well-made-as it-could’ve-been point is that it’s incongruous for us to worry a ton about drone surveillance when we all leave plenty of data breadcrumbs all over the place without thinking much about it.
The g’ubment can still Google you and learn more than a drone over your yard will tell them
In any event I shall savor the victory and presume there’s a cold beverage in it for me next time I see you.