Question of the day
Monday, Feb 25, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* An interesting bill sponsored by state Sen. Daniel Biss…
Creates the Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act.
Provides that a law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather information.
Permits the use of a drone by a law enforcement agency: (1) to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is that risk; (2) if a law enforcement agency first obtains a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone; or (3) if a law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent harm to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence.
Provides that a law enforcement agency may not own or use a drone that is equipped with any kind of lethal or non-lethal weapon.
Provides that information obtained or collected in violation of the Act is not admissible as evidence in any criminal, civil, administrative, or other proceeding. Establishes certain information retention and reporting requirements concerning drone ownership and use.
* From the ACLU…
The Illinois National Guard and the Champaign County Sheriff have tested drone technology in Illinois airspace. And, the Cook County Sheriff is now exploring whether to acquire and utilize the technology. […]
“When government knows where we are, they know who we are,” said Adam Schwartz, senior staff counsel for the ACLU of Illinois. “Our nation is in the midst of a technological revolution. Many of these technologies permit the massive gathering of information and data about individuals and groups and can undermine our freedoms.”
“We must adopt appropriate guidelines now to insure that these technologies do not become overly intrusive.”
* The Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center has been FOIAing the local county sheriff to see what he’s up to with his drone…
From the documents provided, it looks as if the Sheriff’s drone has been downed by mechanical failures as much as it has been in the air. According to a flight log obtained, the Sheriff’s drone was flown four times between November 2011 and May 2012, all for training purposes only. Two of the flights were “Non-Successful,” with the most recent one ending in a crash.
* And a recent Tribune story…
More than 20 states are pursuing similar legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. While some states are trying to regulate unmanned aircraft use, others are trying to impose moratoriums that ban them, Biss said.
Virginia lawmakers approved a two-year moratorium on the aircraft in the state last week to allow time for a study. The legislation awaits the governor’s signature. […]
[Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart’s] thinking is that drones would be cheaper to use and cost less taxpayer money than using helicopters for aerial operations, Bilecki said. A small, unmanned aircraft used for search and rescue can cost on average between $38,000 and $50,000, much less than in years past, said James Hill, president of AirCover Integrated Solutions, a California-based drone manufacturer.
To gain traction at the Capitol, Biss potentially might have to overcome resistance from law enforcement leaders. To that end, Biss said he’s talking with police chiefs, the Illinois State Police and other police agencies to iron out any wrinkles.
* The Question: Should the state ban unarmed local police drones or regulate them? If your answer is “regulate” then what would be your regulations? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
online surveys
- Will Caskey - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 12:30 pm:
Regulate.
Sheesh this is not even close to the most invasive surveillance procedure already used by law enforcement that also doesn’t require a warrant.
I love Rep. Biss but come on now.
- Rudykzooti - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 12:33 pm:
this eye in the sky is coming whether we like it or not and Will is right, they are already all over your email and phone looking for “chatter” so we do need to be protected…
- siriusly - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 12:40 pm:
I agree with the search warrant idea. But why not permit it to be used as evidence if you get a warrant? Warrants are usually given with cause.
- Gregor - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 12:41 pm:
If you don’t regulate it strongly from the outset, this tech will rapidly escalate in use and intrusiveness and there will be no putting the genie back in the bottle. Drones have some utilitarian uses, for land survey/ agriculture for example. But don’t just imagine something big like the military drones: these things also come in much smaller and more nimble sizes that put eyes and ears anywhere indoors or outdoors. If you don’t like speed cameras now, imagine the state police using drones to monitor an entire highway from end to end, not just a speed trap here and there.
We have seen abuses of sniffer dogs and then of infrared thermal scanners. Law Enforcement is always going to push for more and more tools and more intrusion, unless there are limits set.
Definitely the imagery should not be admissible in court. That’s a good first step, as well as requiring a warrant. Otherwise, you’ll get operators just trolling around looking to find a cause for a search, like NYC’s “stop and frisk”, and that’s a bad precedent to set.
- RNUG - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 12:44 pm:
Without voting or otherwise commenting, I’ll just post these links to two other recent stories on drones:
IL Times:
http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-11062-watch-out-ndash-the-drones-are-coming.html
One of the IT pubs:
http://www.informationweek.com/government/mobile/faa-drone-plan-hits-turbulence/240148921?cid=nl_IW_daily_2013-02-21_html&elq=9e099df130bb4bf3bdbd47dc7d15c141
- Responsa - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 12:47 pm:
Ban. This actually may be an area where freedom loving right-leaning persons and freedom loving left-leaning persons could wholeheartedly agree that drones over America is a not good thing and their use domestically is frought with terrible possibilities for intentional abuse or accidents.
- wordslinger - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 12:50 pm:
I said regulate. You already have choppers, planes doing radar, cameras everywhere, etc.
There’s really no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
The Champaign County Sheriff has a drone? Sounds like a pretty sweet toy to mess with on weekends.
- MOD - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 12:50 pm:
Drones can be utilized in many ways that have a significant benefit to public safety and the general public such as manhunts, missing persons, overwatch of high-risk search warrants and a whole host of things unrelated to “spying” on people. Additionally, it accoplishes this at a fraction of the cost of having a piloted aircraft. For that reason is it too valuable a resource to block completely, it jsut needs the right framework for use to avoid abuse.
- Knome Sane - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 12:51 pm:
Regulate.
What’s the difference between a drone and closed circuit cameras on every street corner? As my Dad would say, if you aren’t doing anything wrong, why would you care if someone is watching you, especially in public?
- Very Old Soil - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 1:09 pm:
In public is one thing. In my backyard is another.
- Last Bull Moose - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 1:12 pm:
Regulate.
This can be a relatively inexpensive way to provide visual and infrared surveillance. With taping of what is seen it can document dangerous driving. Courts need to know how to handle the information gathered.
Would really help DNR monitor hunting and poaching. I rarely see them in the field now.
- Out Here In The Middle - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 1:13 pm:
Dear Sen. Bliss — Would you please also file a ‘Freedom from Telecommunications Surveillance Act’ while you’re at it?
- Anonymous - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 1:28 pm:
As I’d imagine the models adapted for this type of surveillance will be “voice equipped,” I guess I would first need to know whether Oswego Willy, or people like Oswego Willy, will have access to one.
I’d hate to have the same “oddly-phrased” question “following” me around everywhere.
- Anonimo - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 1:31 pm:
We must ensure that state law regulates the use of drones by law enforcement in a manner consistent with constitutional rights to privacy.
- Kelly Dietrich - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 1:35 pm:
Regulate.
What’s the difference between a drone with a camera, a police helicopter or security camera? (No, that’s not a set up for a joke.)
If we already allow security cameras, cop cars with cameras, and even helicopters with cameras, why is a camera attached to an unmanned vehicle any different?
- Charlie Leonard - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 1:36 pm:
It’s coming anyway, and why take a tool off the table unilaterally? Regulate it. Tightly.
- Captain Illini - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 1:38 pm:
Regulate. Search and rescue is a legitimate non-warrented use of this technology. However, it’s a fine line that in my mind would need a warrent when used for any other purpose. Infrared listening devices could be easily affixed, thus it’s not to far away from opening Ms. Pandora’s Box.
- Mouthy - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 1:50 pm:
Voted for “Ban”. Why not insert a chip in a body part so government entities can follow your every move. Gosh, by some of the logic I’m reading here, if you aren’t going anywhere you shouldn’t be, then what’s to worry about. Right? Why not give up all your freedom at once and get it over with.
- Francis - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 1:54 pm:
I suppose this needs some looking into, so credit Biss for bringing it up. But most big police departments already have helicopters…not sure if drones can do anything that the choppers can’t. Drones could do it more quietly and cheaper.
- mongo - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 2:08 pm:
Regulate…ciould restrict use to search-and-rescue, or when a warrant is issued, or some other authorized purpose.
- T.O. - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 2:18 pm:
Courts have already ruled you have no right to privacy regarding the airspace over your property. The government can, overfly your back yard and take all the video they want in a helicopter or airplane, without a warrant. Regulate it. It’s just a cheaper version of what hey are already doing.
- WazUp - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 2:19 pm:
Regulate same criteria as a search warrant with limit exemptions.
- Foxfire - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 2:33 pm:
Regulate. I see no good reason to ban the responsible use of technology for law enforcement purposes. The use cameras has expanded exponentially in the past few years. This seems like a logical next step in the surveillance process. It will result in more efficient - and more effective - law enforcement.
- Cheryl44 - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 2:53 pm:
Regulate. Drones are way cheaper to use than humans spying on other humans.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 2:56 pm:
Regulate. And the most important part of Biss’ legislation is this, which I think most of us agree on:
“Provides that a law enforcement agency may not own or use a drone that is equipped with any kind of lethal or non-lethal weapon.”
At least I hope we can agree on that.
- Ms. Privacy - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 2:59 pm:
BAN!!! Regulation will only limit what can be used in court. Putting this electronic Peeping Tom in the hands of thousands of local law enforcement officers will be too much temptation. Inability to use what they find in court will not curb their curiosity for “just wanting to know”.
- Huh? - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 3:11 pm:
Given that drones have been stigmatized due to their use in other countries, what is so different between an eye in the sky and a camera on a light pole?
There are so many cameras keeping watch over the American public that we have no control over how our images are used. How may businesses have in-store cameras? How many times do we pass a red-light camera? How many cameras do we pass on the highways on our way to work?
Countless! What is one more?
- corvax - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 3:15 pm:
TO is right. It’s silly to ban a tool useful and legal for surveillance in areas where, for the most part, there isn’t a reasonable expecation of privacy, and, where there is, requirng a warrant should insure proper use.
- Wensicia - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 4:20 pm:
There are satellites that can zero into your back yard. I can’t see a problem with drones. The regulation should focus on the legal use of information gathered.
- Just The Way It Is One - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 4:28 pm:
Ban them for now (and perhaps for good, but if not, then with severe and multiple restrictions if one day the “powers that be” deem it must come about, but strictly for NATional Security reasons only. This thing needs to be far better thought before even conSIDering usage.
I swear I personally observed one of these Drones being tested in the skies above the shoreline of Lake Michigan in the Downtown area about a year or so ago. It really freaked me out–thought I was seein’ things–but now after all the recent articles of exposure, that they HAVE been actively testing all sorts of them, now we know the truth and that what I saw was no hoax. I’d see it and then it’d disappear…this went on for about 20 minutes or so, and I wondered if this WAS some secret Military Stealth helicopter or plane being tested here because Chicago is the U.S.’s 3rd most populous cities and/or because our U.S. President is from these parts so the go-ahead was secretly given–either way, America is not ready for this spine-tingling level of invisible surveillance…!
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 4:35 pm:
Regulate. As others have noted, Big Brother already has plenty of other ways of peepin’ and creepin’.
As far as Champaign County is concerned, AA believes a community and a campus filled with tech experts can more than hold its own against the Sheriff’s low-bid drone. As noted in the blog, the thing seems to have a problem staying in flight…
- MrJM - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 4:38 pm:
It should be regulated and outsourced to a efficient private entity like this one: http://omnicorp.com/
– MrJM
- Sunshine - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 4:51 pm:
Ban. I do not like to have Joe Schmo Law spying on me any more than they already are.
Likely these things will be falling out of the sky hitting homes on a regular basis. After all, if law enforcement can use them, why not the news media, Bill and Bobbies spy service, or John’s garage. I might even need one for my garden security to protect my pot……pottery that is.
Where does it stop?
- Excessively Rabid - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 5:36 pm:
I said neither. The last thing we need is a patchwork of state laws regarding this issue. Recognizing that there are serious privacy concerns connected with all kinds of surveillance, this is just legislators wading into something few have any real grasp of. They will only end up making a mess, and I consider it grandstanding.
- Guzzlepot - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 7:27 pm:
Regulate.
The police don’t need a warrant for observations made from manned aircraft that are flying at over 2000 feet. What is the difference between a pilot with binoculars flying at 2001 feet and an unmanned drone. Not a lot of thought went into that part of the bill.
As to the no lethal or non-lethal weapons, that is reasonable.
- downstate commissioner - Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 10:17 pm:
Regulate: the right to privacy in America is already gone, with phone cameras, facebook, voyeur sites, etc. Why ban something that might be very useful for search and rescue, warranted surveillance, etc. Unlike several others on here, I see little reason to ban NON-lethal weapons for police use- a drone might be able to target tear gas or pepper spray in a safer, more accurate manner. (believe that some house fires have been triggered by tear gas use.)