Seattle residents remain skeptical about police drones
SEATTLE -- The Seattle Police Department believes using drones will help cut down on crime, but the idea isn't sitting well with everyone in the community.
Department officials met with the public on Wednesday to discuss the issue. Opponents of the plan are concerned about privacy, and one group went as far as calling the drones a "gateway drug for big-time surveillance."
The police department already has the drones, and now city leaders like Councilman Bruce Harrell want to lay down the law about how officers can use them.
"It poses some problems," Harrell said. "No city has ever really talked about when they should be used and how you restrict them, and so this legislation would address all those issues head on."
The department plans on using the Dragonflyer drone as an eye in the sky. The machine's thermal imaging technology would help during hostage situations, search and rescue operations, bomb threats and when officers need to pursue an armed criminal, police say.
Department officials made it clear the drones would not be used to conduct general surveillance, but many people at Wednesday's meeting were not sold.
"You guys are idiots," one attendee said. "You're telling us, 'Oh they got'em already, we have to use them.' Bull!"
The ACLU has also raised questions about how the drones will be used and how citizens will be protected from prying eyes.
"They have unprecedented ability for law enforcement to track our movement and who we associate with, where we go, what we're doing," said the ACLU's Doug Honig.
The rules proposed by Harrell would not allow the drones to be used for spying on anyone but suspected criminals, and only after a search warrant has been issued. Unlike military drones, the police drones would not be equipped with weapons.
Chris Stearns of the Seattle Human Rights Commission has reservations about the drones.
"There's a lot of potential for misuse, and we want to make sure that does not happen," Stearns said.
Harrell said there should be no rush to push the policy through.
"I would err on the side of caution," he said. "Holding it for two weeks, make sure we have a good piece of legislation that's addressed all the concerns."
Harrell said he wants as much community input as possible before a decision is made.
Department officials met with the public on Wednesday to discuss the issue. Opponents of the plan are concerned about privacy, and one group went as far as calling the drones a "gateway drug for big-time surveillance."
The police department already has the drones, and now city leaders like Councilman Bruce Harrell want to lay down the law about how officers can use them.
"It poses some problems," Harrell said. "No city has ever really talked about when they should be used and how you restrict them, and so this legislation would address all those issues head on."
The department plans on using the Dragonflyer drone as an eye in the sky. The machine's thermal imaging technology would help during hostage situations, search and rescue operations, bomb threats and when officers need to pursue an armed criminal, police say.
Department officials made it clear the drones would not be used to conduct general surveillance, but many people at Wednesday's meeting were not sold.
"You guys are idiots," one attendee said. "You're telling us, 'Oh they got'em already, we have to use them.' Bull!"
The ACLU has also raised questions about how the drones will be used and how citizens will be protected from prying eyes.
"They have unprecedented ability for law enforcement to track our movement and who we associate with, where we go, what we're doing," said the ACLU's Doug Honig.
The rules proposed by Harrell would not allow the drones to be used for spying on anyone but suspected criminals, and only after a search warrant has been issued. Unlike military drones, the police drones would not be equipped with weapons.
Chris Stearns of the Seattle Human Rights Commission has reservations about the drones.
"There's a lot of potential for misuse, and we want to make sure that does not happen," Stearns said.
Harrell said there should be no rush to push the policy through.
"I would err on the side of caution," he said. "Holding it for two weeks, make sure we have a good piece of legislation that's addressed all the concerns."
Harrell said he wants as much community input as possible before a decision is made.
They need to do like Obama does, arm them and have them "take out" people someone decides need it. Should cut way down on crime.
People should be paying attention to this related subject in our legislature.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1581&year=2011
Call or email your representatives to get behind this bill to try and stop some of this unconstitutional behavior.
WE NEED MORE DRONE,S YOUÂ Â IDIOT
So the surveilance cameras caught a crime in action in the city a couple days ago and the police were able to post the video in hope of catching the captured theif's accomplice. Yes, I know it's just one instance, at least that I know of. But everybody is still worried Big Brother is gonna be watching them. It's not big news they do. If you don't want to get caught doing something you shouldn't or will feel ashamed of later DON'T DO IT! Everybody want their freedom, and security but no one wants to compromise. Example, Everybody wants to be able to feel secure in their own home, but certain individuals want to take away their gun rights. I could go on and on but it's really not worth it actually. Some of you people amaze me.
There is NO compromise on our freedom. None. Zero. Nada. Not one crime nor a massive crime wave. If you wish to give up your own rights that's one thing but to offer up everyone elses rights is quite another. "Some of you people amaze me.". That's you. You just don't get the whole freedom thing.   Â
who's gonna pay for it when it crashes?
Â
I don't think these drones are a big deal if you could trust the police to obey the constitution, but you can't. Its like FLIR. Its illegal to use now unless cops have a search warrant but they still use it anyways just as an investigative tool. They can't use what they find from FLIR for a search warrant but once they find a little illegally gotten info they use that to get more. But with the advent of the Patriot Act and NDAA, its pretty obvious than no one cares about our Bill of Rights any more. Any politician that voted for either of these bills should stand trial for treason. They violated their oath to the constitution. And any officer that violates their oath to the constitution should also stand trial for treason.
The potential for abuse far out weighs any good these "drones" can be used for. There just another toy my tax dollars eventually pay for. And besides, don't we have a gaping billion dollar hole in the state budget? What the hell do you need these for? Oh that's right, "crime fighting". Seattle residents should be petitioning the FAA to revoke the SPD's COA and be done with this. I understand the SPD have a tough job and that most of the officers actually uphold their OATH. But this is just another incremental step I personally don't approve of.
Â
Do you think the SPD would put up with the public using these same drones to keep tabs on the police? Your drone would get shot out of the sky by police under the guise of "officer safety".Â
Â
Does your state use drones? Find out here...
Â
Â
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/faa-releases-its-list-drone-certificates-leaves-many-questions-unanswered
Â
 @fubar Actually, I agree, "Concerned Citizens" should be allowed to Monitor "Police Behavior" When In Public.., America Demands that as a Nation "We" Monitor Iran,South Korea, Etc.., So, Why Can't The American Public "Monitor" the Police??
 @Michael Cortez  @fubar Good luck getting the video from SPD.
When you walk out onto the streets: you've given up YOUR Right TO Privacy:When You Log-In to Facebook You've Given  up YOUR RIGHT TO privacy: When You Log-in to Twitter You've given up your Right TO PRIVACY:Using These "Social-Media outlets;and, Google + (You Tube) gives up YOUR RIGHT TO privacy..,Your Smart Phone Relinquishes your right to Privacy..,
Wrong. LE needs a warrant to gather info from any of those simply because of YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
The Seattle police are a bunch of power hungry idiots. Now that all the guns are off the streets, they can get away with this kind of sh_t. When are people going to learn? Never listen to the government when it comes to your rights being taken.
 @Paul Find your own picture. This one is mine!
I guess it makes me a tin foil hat guy when I read articles such as "The Air Force has been secretly flying armed Reaper drones on counterterrorism missions from a remote civilian airport in southern EthiÂoÂpia" http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-27/world/35276956_1_drone-flights-drone-operations-reaper-drones
Â
Or "Thousands of military drones to be deployed over US mainland"
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/06/dron-j18.html
Â
Or "Memo justifies drone strikes on US citizens"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b449d3c-6fa9-11e2-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz2KEwFXwNH
Â
OR maybe it means I don't live on planet poptart, where video games and sunday night football and beer are all that matter in the universe.Â
 @snow surfer Yikes!
Jeez, people in tinfoil hats! I figure that if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. If you are really that worried about these drones spying on YOU, well, then what ARE you doing wrong?
 @chiapetto Why don't you set up a webcam of your own home then?
 @chiapetto Under your argument, then you shouldn't have a single problem with video surveillance in your home? After all we need to protect kids from child abuse, and if your not abusing then its a non issue right?
@chiapetto I'll ask the same question of you....are you willing to grant permission to search your residence? Yes or no? If no what are you hiding?
They should put laser cannons on it. That would be funny. Or tranquilizer darts so they can shoot 2 guys that are robbing a woman on the sidewalk...
One problem is that so many of you are too young to have read George Orwellâs 1984. He was a bit ahead of the time, but he was also dead on. Read the book and then try to tell me that is not what is happening.Â
people get a life, if you are not involved in criminal behavior the police will not even notice you, they do not have the money or man power to be looking at all the ugly complaints. Quit being paranoid thinking there watching me and get over yourselves you are no that interesting unless you are committing a crime!!!!
@nunof uors
So how is the Kool-Aid today?
@nunof uors Are you involved in criminal behavior? Do you mind if I come over and search periodically? Yes? What have you got to hide?
Way cool! So much more fun than clay pidgins.Â
If I understand this right, they will need trained people to fly and monitor these things. So, will they just be sitting around when they're not needed? I doubt it.
Â
What about equipping them with radar so they can pull traffic duty? Hey, that sounds almost as good a way to generate revenue as red light cameras, and even better than the spotter planes use by the State Patrol.
Â
I remember when the seat belt law was a secondary offense, and they couldn't stop you for not wearing it. I remember something similar about the cell phone law. Once they get their foot in the door, hang on to your a**.
Â
When they passed a law to allow cops to confiscate your property, it was supposed to be used only for drug dealers. But, you know law enforcement says it would be foolish for them not to use all the tools available to them. Now, they just take, and they don't even have to answer for it.
Â
There are already so many laws on the books that they can use against each and every one of us, that it would be pretty simple to use these little spies in the sky to make our life miserable if some authority type decides to dislike us. Watch out mister blogger. You just might offend the wrong person.
Â
I'm the old guy on the block. I remember when you and I could criticize the misbehaving cop on the street. Now, we'd get arrested for it. We're pretty much a police state as it is. Let's do what we can to maintain what little bit of freedom that we have left.
If they fly over my house watching what I do they are going to get very bored.
This is logical progression from our wonderful red light cameras. They save money, they make money. Who could resist THAT? It will not be long before they'll have a photo of your thoughts. The technology exists. It would be the MOST PROFITABLE.
@Elvis Stop running red lights and putting families in danger at these intersections and you will not have to worry.
 @nunof uors  @Elvis My driving record is clean...how about you?
@Elvis I love how people complain, cry, whine, and moan about red light cameras. You spend so much time complaining about the method used to catch people breaking the law and say absolutely nothing about the law itself that you disagree with.
Â
So let me ask, do you think you should be allowed to run any red light you wish and be allowed to speed through school zones durring a school day when kids are or could be present?
@Elvis Does your tinfoil hat protect from the government thought police?
 @scared_citizen  @Elvis I read about this over a year ago. It's what they let us know about, then. I can only imagine what certain defense research groups could try to use it for by now.
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/
This comment has been deleted
 @Fooey Patooey!My greatest hope in life is that I manage to provide at least a little entertainment for my fellow Earth Ship passengers.
 @Elvis Interesting, yes, but to suggest that they are going to be doing it from a 10 pound police drone is ridiculous with the current technology and you shouldn't be surprised when people ridicule you for suggesting it.Â
Try suggesting things that are actually feasible and use your brain, not your paranoia, and others might seriously listen to you... not just because you're always a good laugh.
 @Fooey Patooey! You have to admit, it IS interesting that they can create a movie of your thoughts and dreams, regardless how they go about it.
 @Elvis Which part of the drone is the fMRI mounted on and how do they get a machine the size and weight of an SUV into the air with such tiny propellers? How do they keep the magnets in the fMRI from interfering with the guidance? How do they coax citizens into the fMRI and get them to lay still and think illegal thoughts while they are running the scan?
It's a very long leap of a very paranoid imagination to say "the technology exists" until you can give sensible answers to all of those questions.
I simply do not trust the SPD ... with drones? Â Is this a joke? Â Absolutely not.Â
This comment has been deleted
@nunof uors Well.... don't commit crimes? What activity will be deemed criminal once somebody is watching? I don't like your garden/tree house/pool/the games your children play. Just take a look at how the Nanny country of England has deemed simple common activities as criminal since somebody might get annoyed or a bloody nose.
I'm sure that as soon as these begin to fly, law suits will start flying as well. Of course overtime these will be allowed as most things are, and of course these will be abused. If there is one thing that history has proven is that technology will be leveraged by the law enforcement and a subset of the enforcers will abuse it.
Why on earth should SPD be trusted to use these after the DOJ review?!
This comment has been deleted
 @nunof uors More like some perverted SPD cops will spy on women undressing and then later when they are investigated "lose" the video like they "lost" over 100,000 dashcam videos over the years.Â
I don't care if the cops are told how they can use them, they will use them in any way they want to. Easy to say they are training with it or something like that. Do you want one hovering by your house/apartment watching you get undressed in your bedroom thinking you have some privacy? I don't trust the cops at all. I don't think it would take to much to knock one down.
@Thepriest It cost money every time they use the drone, if your not committing a crime or selling drugs(are you) from your house you have nothing to worry about, and you need to get over yourself in thinking you are so special they want to see you!
@Thepriest I would call the airspace around my home up to about 200ft as being my personal space and any flying drones within that space are subject to being shot down. If the police want to come onto my property (including my "local" airspace), they better present a search warrant BEFORE doing so.
 @scared_citizen  @Thepriest I totally agree. Say away from my house unless you have a search warrant.
@scared_citizen Yet another example of a 'responsible' gun owner willing to shoot thier gun in the air with no reggard to where the bullets may come back down or who may be under them.
Â
You shoot at or shoot down their drone and you'll have the SWAT team on your doorstep in a heartbeat.
@what? You shoot down my toy and I would see that as a threat I would have to shoot down?
@what? Just make it look like the shot came from your house. You don't value your freedom anyway.
@Telman@ @scared_citizen You shoot down their toy and I would bet everything I own they'd have the swat team on your doorstep.
People shoot shotguns into the air safely all the time. How else do you think people hunt ducks? Shot falls harmlessly to the earth without doing the damage a rifle or pistol bullet does, because it lacks the mass to maintain much energy.Yet another example of someone calling out gun owners without understanding guns.Ducks, geese, pheasant, quail, etc. - they all fall safely to shotguns in the air without any injury on the way back down.
 @what?  @scared_citizen SWAT Team? What is going on here? A police State? Soon they will be killing American citizens with them. Wait the government already does.
 @Thepriest two BBs or pellets should be able to take out the rotors on both sides.
@Keysontheright @Thepriest Say hi to the SWAT team...