Mesa County Police Have Been Using Drones For Years, Still Coming Up With Rules On Use
from the spy-games dept
The march towards drones becoming a common tool for domestic law enforcement agencies seems inevitable and some people aren't happy about it. We've already covered the backlash against one artist who satarized New York City's drone program. San Diego, for their part, valiantly refused to honor an FOIA request on their domestic UAV program because they determined on their own that there wouldn't be a public benefit to the disclosure. MuckRock thought that was a dodge not afforded San Diego under FOIA rules, but San Diego again declined to say anything at all about the program.
"Sorry, citizen, but Detective Iron Death-Spy is very, very shy."
Image source: CC BY 2.0
But one thing that has generally been accepted is that law enforcement agencies were required to operate these drones under very strict guidelines and within very strict geographic boundaries. It would appear, for Mesa County, Colorado at least, that may not be universally true. The EFF's Drone Census project has uncovered that Mesa County has two UAVs and can operate them without many of the restrictions in place elsewhere.
The MCSO must abide by standard FAA restrictions on domestic UAV flights, which cap flights to below 400 feet and preclude night flights or operating over "populated areas, heavily trafficked roads, or an open-air assembly of people." But MCSO's drone authorization includes no geographic restrictions: effectively, the agency can fly its UAVs anywhere in Mesa County. This freedom has allowed the agency to log dozens of operational missions since fall 2010. MCSO flight logs indicate that its UAV team has logged more than 160 flight hours on its drones since January 2011.So, whereas other UAV programs are restricted to flying over areas where they could chiefly assist in locating missing people in difficult to surveil areas, Mesa County can fly them anywhere within their jurisdiction without any limitations beyond the somewhat vague-sounding "populated areas, heavily trafficked roads" or the open air above a large assembly of people. That can leave a great deal of sky to buzz around with less of the oversight I think is desperately needed in programs like this.
Now, just to be clear, these drones do not carry arms. They are used for imaging. Then again, as the creep continues, the rules keep shifting towards greater use and application, so it wouldn't be fair to slam anyone concerned that someday we may indeed see armed UAVs over our skies. Equally worrying is this:
MCSO has been using drones operationally for two years, but the department has no written drone policy outlining the uses for which its officers may deploy UAVs. Ms. Barnes writes that MCSO is "currently in the process of drafting a written policy for the use of our unmanned aircraft."Well, that's just peaches. Military-style technology deployed domestically without any official policy for its use. I feel so warm and fuzzy inside.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: colorado, drones, mesa county, policies, rules
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, we can see that, as your images are freely available on the hacked PD's computer.
Nice cat.
But put some clothes on already. Yeesh.
/fun time with Tim
If the public's truly upset over these drones, why are they still in the air?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing could have made me rest easier in knowing you couldn't see me than this statement. Cats? Shit, why not just try to keep Cthulu around as a pet? He's slightly less evil and twice as interesting....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) The law enforcement agencies keep ignoring FOIA requests on their use
2) Law enforcement seems to not really care about public opinion
3) The patriot act seems to make law enforcement think that public opinion is unimportant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doing the math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this part of the Black Mesa Security apparatus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Well, that's just peaches. Military-style technology deployed domestically without any official policy for its use. I feel so warm and fuzzy inside."
While the government has been beefing up law enforcement with military-style tools and weaponry, they've been working to disarm the public. The media is using the tragedy in Newtown to further their anti-gun agenda. Every single kind of gun can kill, so the only possible reason they're singling out semi-automatic weaponry is because they want to give law enforcement/military a tactical advantage against the citizenry.
People better realize what's really going on -- that is if they want to keep their freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh oh....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh oh....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Desert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Desert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Countermeasures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-PBfbDetNo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US EULA: By accepting these terms of citizenship...
i'm still trying to get my head around *how* breaking and entering your 'castle' (sic), planting bugs and/or video cameras is NOT 'unreasonable search and seizure' ? ? ?
the supposed 'reasoning' (which was essentially: 'Well, we let law enforcement (sic) do whatever the fuck they want to do, shut up, citizen.'), is that it isn't 'obtrusive', blah blah blah.
r u fucking kidding me ? ? ?
so, when -in the very near future- we have all but invisible nano-bugs and nano-bots, they can go EVERYWHERE and record EVERYTHING, 'cause -you know- you cain't hardly not see'em anyways...
r u fucking kidding me ? ? ?
'law enforcement' are THE biggest violators of 'the law' (what a fucking joke) and the constitution...
game over, kampers
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, just to be clear, these drones do not carry arms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now, just to be clear, these drones do not carry arms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I build R/C planes as a hobby and have been getting into the aerial photography part of it. An R/C plane can't do more than a real plane or helicopter when it comes to surveillance, it can do considerably less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where does it end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, no they weren't. They were designed as toys and adapted for war. R/C planes were around for a long time before they began being used in military applications. The fact is for about $500 ANYONE can make pretty nice aerial photography platform with all kinds of autonomous automation.
Just Google DIY drones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vague Sounding...
The FAA definition of these items are VERY VERY clear, just ask any pilot... But I do guess it did they right CYA by saying "Vague-Sounding."
To be honest if these are the areas that they are not allowed to operate, then the drones are of little use other than possibly search and rescue, and looking for pot fields...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vague Sounding...
Mesa County is in Colorado, so the drones aren't very good for this anymore...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not As Bad As It Sounds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drones
A drone can't do anything that a piloted can't do. We have police helicopters flying over populated areas, over freeways clogged with traffic, and over open-air stadiums all the time. Why is it any different for a drone to do these things?
Same with the military. A drone attack on the enemy is no different than the same attack flown by a person in a fighter jet. It's just as accurate (or inaccurate, as the case may be) and the weaponry is the same. So why such outrage when it's a drone that's used?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]