Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: A look at Sam McCann’s federal lawsuit
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The spin…
Sen Sandoval's SB2562 regarding law enforcement use of drones for safety at large-scale events would attempt to prevent situations like the Las Vegas shooting massacre. pic.twitter.com/SQVhUDPihk
— IL Senate Democrats (@ILSenDems) May 2, 2018
* The concern…
The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday accused Mayor Rahm Emanuel of being the heavy hand behind legislation that would allow police officers to use drones to monitor the growing number of protests on the streets of Chicago.
The groundbreaking bill would allow drones to be used to hover over crowds, for the purpose of taking still photos and making audio and video recordings of demonstrations. Even more troubling to the ACLU, the drones could be equipped with facial recognition technology. […]
“Given Chicago’s history of surveillance against protesters and social justice advocates – including by the notorious Red Squad — the Chicago police should not be able to use this new, powerful tool to monitor protesters near silently and from above,” Karen Sheley, director of the ACLU Police Practices Project, was quoted as saying in a news release.
“The legislation also ignores sweeping surveillance tools currently available to the police – including an integrated public camera system that covers much of the city.”
Sheley noted that the House and Senate versions of the controversial bill “effectively guts” legislation passed three years ago requiring a judicial warrant for the use of drones by police in Illinois.
* Other bills…
* Proposal to give Illinois municipalities flexibility on police chief pensions moves forward: A proposed bill in Springfield would allow retired law enforcement officers to opt-out of vesting into a second pension plan if hired as a police chief.
* New Pension Intercept Law Puts Distressed Illinois Cities In The Crosshairs For Added Oversight: [Jim Spiotto, bankruptcy expert at Chapman Strategic Advisors] and the Civic Federation of Chicago have helped write a bill called the Local Government Protection Authority. Among other things, the bill would establish an oversight board, set up a clear procedure for dealing with a stressed city, and allow Chapter 9. The bill is currently languishing in the House Rules Committee.
* Horse tracks trot out an old nag to get cash from Illinois lawmakers
* Dean Neubrander believes solution to nursing shortage lies in academic progression and partnership: In Springfield today, nurses were shut out of the discussion regarding baccalaureate nursing education. It was a sad day under the dome. “There is no question that we are facing a nursing shortage both here in Illinois and nationally. And, there has been much discussion about how to best act to combat that shortage. It is my firm belief that the path forward lies not in legislation that gives the community college the opportunity to offer the BSN, but via strategic partnerships between community colleges and four-year institutions that provide the best possible education to the next generation of nurses. We also need to find solutions that address the shortage of clinical site placements and qualified faculty,” Neubrander explains.
* Illinois Rep. Barb Wheeler warns porn ‘is not a victimless crime’ - House Resolution 727: Porn creates ’sexually toxic environment’
* Lawmakers eye changes to cut cost of Illinois construction projects: The Illinois Department of Transportation is backing changes to the procurement process aimed at saving taxpayers money on construction projects. Most construction projects in Illinois are split into two phases – design and construction – with one company getting a contract to design and another company getting a contract to build. Design-build is a procurement process that combines the engineering and design of a project with the construction, instead of having separate bids for each part.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 1:30 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: A look at Sam McCann’s federal lawsuit
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The ACLU is still mad about the Red Squad?
Gee whiz, you illegally spy on tens of thousands of citizens over decades and they never, ever let you forget about it.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 1:53 pm
If you have not watched it yet, last night’s episode of Chicago Med showed what an ER is like when a mass shooting occurs. the circumstance is a large party like event in Millennium Park. the shooter disappears into the crowd. drones would assist in these circumstances. the action of the Chicago Med episode compresses 2 hours of real action into about one for the show and what you see should terrify you and make you think. limit the availability of military style weapons, give hospitals lots of assistance so they can be ready, and, yes, give the police drones for large events.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 1:54 pm
What a crock about the Vegas shooting. A drone hovering above the crowd was going to stop a shooter in a hotel window how, exactly? Are we going to equip the thing with missiles?
Comment by PJ Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 2:04 pm
I wonder how they would square the Biometric law with the facial recognition software in the drones. I mean, I just used the googles, and it looks like it only prevents commercial use, but I’m also not a lawyer who does in depth research of these things.
Am I on the right track here?
Comment by ChrisB Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 2:06 pm
== the shooter disappears into the crowd. ==
Unless the drone happened to be pointed exactly at the right location before that happened, it’s useless. So now you need a whole effing fleet of drones. Or just use the cameras we already nearly everywhere.
It amazes me that after all we’ve learned about illegal and frankly terrifying government surveillance in the past decade, we’re full steam ahead for Big Brother in the sky on the flimsiest of pretenses.
Comment by PJ Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 2:11 pm
–The groundbreaking bill would allow drones to be used to hover over crowds, for the purpose of taking still photos and making audio and video recordings of demonstrations. Even more troubling to the ACLU, the drones could be equipped with facial recognition technology. –
Get a warrant, Emanuel.
Your track record — childishness, narcissism, duplicity — is a case study for the need for checks and balances.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 2:11 pm
This drone thing looks like a total bait-and-switch. Justified by a tenuous link to mass shootings, but likely to be used to suppress non-violent protest and dissent.
Comment by Actual Red Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 2:14 pm
Anything above the ground is part of the federal airspace. The FAA does not allow drones to fly directly over crowds.
Comment by m Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 2:28 pm
You know which other government loves facial recognition technology? The Chinese govt.. So yeah. This bill is problematic.
Comment by yo Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 2:29 pm
Drones here, with Amazon, realtors, and any other group looking to grab a technology edge. How soon would drone hunting season start?
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 2:49 pm
Genius by Senator Sandoval. History tells us these drones will send $100 Loitering tickets to homeowners within 2 weeks of the event.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 2:57 pm
That was one compelling hour of teevee, Amalia.
I’m not convinced that cops having drones will prevent, or reduce the risk of, such horrific events, though.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 3:27 pm
The Drone thing…
I wonder if they bothered looking at the part 107 rules for drone operations. You have to get an FAA waiver to fly over people. The FAA has granted 11 of those, none of which appear to be to law enforcement.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/waivers_granted/ (use 107.39 as the search)
You need either a license or a COA to operate a drone for public safety activities. So you are going to need officers (or someone) to get a commercial drone license (have to pass a test) to operate the drones.
This isn’t as simple as the legislature passes a low.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 3:30 pm
Do we really have to be conditioned to accept warrant-less surveillance? It’s sure being pushed, but I say absolutely not.
If you want a glimpse of the future on this subject, read this in-depth expose, published in Dec 2017 by USA Today, about the degree to which this is used in China, real-time.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/12/17/surveillance-cams-face-scans-help-china-make-thousands-vanish/959047001/
Comment by cdog Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 3:39 pm
To be fair, when has law enforcement ever abused powers granted in the wake of a horrific event?
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 3:41 pm
The first time a drone falls on the crowd and injures someone…
Comment by NoGifts Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 3:52 pm
Legislators really lack imagination about unintended consequences.
Comment by NoGifts Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 3:53 pm
– wonder if they bothered looking at the part 107 rules for drone operations.–
Understand the previous mayor just went and tore up an airstrip without notifying anyone.
At first he claimed it was to prevent terrorism (which made no sense).
Later, he admitted he just felt like it.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 6:25 pm
I agree there are valid, extremely important privacy concerns about law enforcement drone use that must be discussed and protected. But the conversation needs to involve facts:
1) To fly over people, even law enforcement needs FAA approval. This is additional protection against misuse.
2) The bill includes a prohibition against arming drones used for large scale events (no pepper spray, no weapons).
3) All of the limitations on use of drone footage that are currently in the Act still apply (retention, disclosure, admissibility, public reporting of law enforcement use of drones; the act is not being “gutted.”) If you are interested, read the Act, not the bill (those sections aren’t being changed, so they aren’t in the bill: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3520&ChapAct=725%A0ILCS%A0167/&ChapterID=54&ChapterName=CRIMINAL%20PROCEDURE&ActName=Freedom%20from%20Drone%20Surveillance%20Act. )
4) It is technologically impossible, today, to equip a drone with facial recognition technology (at least a law enforcement drone; not sure about military grade).
5) One of the problems with the Las Vegas shooting is that they had trouble locating where the shots were coming from. A drone could have helped them locate the shooter in the window and send police into the building more quickly. Vegas had purchased but not yet deployed drones.
Comment by Leslie K Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 6:54 pm