I promised to blog about the capabilities of drone aircraft operated by the police. Unfortunately some sort of glitch with my IP kept me off the air. So I found another location from which to ply my trade.
It seems inevitable that police departments around the nation will adopt drone technology. First, let me say that the idea of the police using drone aircraft is in itself not a bad idea. There are legitimate uses for drones. But having said that, I would also like to add that I do not follow the “I don’t care if they use drones because I have nothing to hide” mentality. Although I do not have anything to hide, that does not justify mass surveillance by the police. Remember, we are all innocent of a crime until proven guilty. And if a person is NOT even SUSPECTED of committing a crime, surveillance, no matter how discrete, is not justified.
Drones now being manufactured for civilian agency use come in various sizes and with varying degrees of technology, from about the size of a hummingbird to the size of a Boeing 737, the main fleet jet of Southwestern Airlines. For the purposes of this blog, however, I am thinking in terms of smaller machines, those with wingspans of ten feet or less. But even these smaller drones come packed with technology that James Bond could only have dreamed of. And technology for drones is evolving every day.
So what are the capabilities of today’s typical police drone? Obviously first and foremost is the drone’s capability of carrying very high-resolution cameras, infrared cameras, radar, and even X-ray cameras. With the various camera array possibilities, the drones can also be equipped with the latest software including facial recognition software and the ability to track persons inside of buildings and PRIVATE RESIDENCES. These drones are also capable of remaining aloft at high altitudes for significant lengths of time, some as long as forty hours. Better cameras and advanced software mean that drones can “see” and recognize a person from as high as two miles, and as far as twenty-five miles down range. And possibly, even inside a the person's home.
So far as is known, police drones are not equipped with weapons, although this too is an area that is evolving quite rapidly. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that drone manufacturers are working on weapons applications as we speak. For instance, drones would certainly be useful for disbursing chemical irritants over crowds at mass gatherings. Similarly, drones could be modified to deploy less-than-lethal or even lethal weapons in dangerous situations such as hostage crises or entry of hostile locations. Facial recognition software implies that drones could be used to locate and “arrest” specific persons or even to deploy lethal force if the offender had proven to be dangerous to approaching officers. An extension of this technology would be the ability for drones to deploy some means to stop fleeing vehicles. The technology is now or will be available for all these purposes. You and I have to decide if we WANT or NEED this technology.
This is one of those “embarrassing” times when I find myself in agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union. As a policeman in years past, and as a rational citizen now, I have found myself at odds with the ACLU many times. But I am forced to fall in line with the ACLU in their opposition to the widespread “routine” use of drones as a means of controlling or “keeping an eye on” the public. Surveillance cameras of all kinds have proliferated through America, the land of the FREE, with alarming rapidity. Drones operated by the police simply represent another layer of this surveillance. The ACLU is currently studying the implications of the use of drones as concerns our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, as well as our right to privacy. But it is really a simple question, after all the rhetoric is stripped away. Do we want policemen or anyone else watching us all the time? Is it “okay” to observe and even record people’s activities when those persons are not suspected of some crime? Will we “feel safer” knowing that a drone could be somewhere watching us at any time?
I am not naive. I know that surveillance cameras are in use in many stores, courthouses, public offices, and even on street corners. In fact, you and I are on camera many times each day whether we see a camera or not. I am not opposed to the use of cameras and other technology within certain bounds; however, I do not feel “safer” or more secure just because there are cameras around. Many times “safety” is touted as the justification for more surveillance. In reality, surveillance cameras do not “make” any location or person safer; instead, they make really good recordings, allowing for the arrest of criminals AFTER the crime is committed and the harm is done. Just as calling 9-1-1 does not instantly produce a police officer, neither will more and better cameras result in faster response time – just in better identification of the criminal.
I do not believe that we have to sit by as police departments and other agencies attempt to purchase and deploy drones. Citizens may approach their councilman or mayor and voice their opposition to wider and more efficient surveillance. If the expense of maintaining and operating a drone were considered, it may be that the cost would be prohibitive when weighed against the possible benefits. Taxpayers could voice their opposition to local taxes being used for this purpose, and we can all demand that our senators and representatives refuse to authorize spending for drones other than military drones. We as citizens can demand of our politicians that laws be enacted restricting the use of drones without probable cause of some kind. The use of drones by police for locating a specific criminal, for locating lost or missing persons, or for tracking fleeing felons, are all justifiable uses. But neither the police, government agencies, the CIA, nor anyone else should be able to fly drones simply to spy on you or me as we go about our daily lives. Peace of mind is not only being relatively safe in our daily lives, but also in knowing that we are not on “candid camera” 24/7.
No comments:
Post a Comment