Bill That Was Supposed To Limit Police Drone Activity Changed By Lobbyist To Enable Weaponized Drones
from the this-won't-go-wrong-at-all... dept
North Dakota state representative Rick Becker had a good idea with his House Bill 1328, which would forbid the use of drones by law enforcement in the state without a warrant. A few other states have been looking at similar proposals, after there have been growing concerns about police using drones for surveillance activities. Virginia, for example, recently passed a law that requires a warrant for police drone use. So, good idea, Rep. Becker.Except... in stepped Bruce Burkett, a lobbyist from the North Dakota Peace Officer's Association, who "was allowed by the state house committee to amend HB 1328" to now make it about legalizing weaponized drones for police. Yes, a "peace officer" representative just made it possible to weaponize drones. The trick? He amended the bill to make it only about "lethal weapons," which now opens the door to what police like to refer to as "less than lethal" weapons like "rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, and Tasers" -- some of which have a history of leading to deaths, despite their "less than lethal" claims.
Even “less than lethal” weapons can kill though. At least 39 people have been killed by police Tasers in 2015 so far, according to The Guardian. Bean bags, rubber bullets, and flying tear gas canisters have also maimed, if not killed, in the U.S. and abroad.Meanwhile, local police are still freaking out about the need to require a warrant. Check out this bit of police state nonsense:
Grand Forks County Sheriff Bob Rost said his department’s drones are only equipped with cameras and he doesn’t think he should need a warrant to go snooping.Yes, we need to spy on your first, to then see if we should get a warrant to spy on you some more. That's not how this works.
“It was a bad bill to start with,” Rost told The Daily Beast. “We just thought the whole thing was ridiculous.”
Rost said he needs to use drones for surveillance in order to obtain a warrant in the first place.
And, now, while there will be warrant requirements for some uses -- though with broad exceptions including within 25 miles of the US/Canada border and for "exigent circumstances" -- the bill will (thanks to a lobbyist) allow the police to also experiment with weaponizing drones. If you thought the militarization of police wasn't screwed up enough, now you might need to worry about stun guns and rubber bullets hailing down from the sky...
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: bruce burkett, drones, north dakota, rick becker, warrants, weaponized drones
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Conspiracy? They've been real too many times to rule something as impossible or improbable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with government is that somewhere along the line someone came up with the idea that government can or should be trusted.
The founding fathers made it clear that government can never be trusted, not trusting the government helps keep it honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How did you know what your randomly picked icon would be? I never get the same one that shows up in the preview and once the message is posted, it's too late to edit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The armed drones lording over you will eventually use the technology developed to allow people in California to control drones in Iraq and Pakistan. Which means that not only can their manufacturing be off-shored to save money, but so can their operation.
This has the added advantage of making it harder to sue when someone feels that they've been unjustly tazed or tear gassed by an overseas security contractor. And those constantly predicting a "cyber-Pearl Harbor" will have a new twist to write about.
Hope This Helps!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bets on how long it takes state governments to outsource drone operations to India?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 'lethal weapons' clause, 5.1, could be fixed easily enough simply by striking out 'lethal', such that it prohibits any drone mounted weapons, rather that just lethal ones. If someone wants to play around with weaponized drones they can join the army, otherwise they can do without.
The rest of it looks fairly solid, though the 'Exigent circumstances' clause, 4.1, seems rather open to abuse, given how easy it would be to argue that every call presents 'imminent danger to life or bodily harm'. A nice modification to that would be a requirement post-event to submit a justification for the need of the drone's deployment, with any gathered or resulting evidence barred from use if the justification was found to be too weak. Not perfect, but it would at least do something regarding the large loophole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In a world where Congress has redefined pizza to be a vegetable (in, what, 2011?), I have to imagine it would be fairly easy to redefine certain "non-lethal weapons" - say, pepper spray as an "aerosol-based anti-psychotic medication with pacifying qualities" or similar. Of course, many medications have negative side effects, but as long as the label is properly formatted, FDA should be fine with it.
I can hear the smooth, deep-voiced voice over in the commercial now:
"Imagine a world where drones aren't weaponized - they've been re-purposed and converted into unmanned aerial medical dispensaries..."
I mean, who could argue against that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is it because otherwise "hip" folks like you would
welcome showing off to law enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fifteen years ago this was a tag line representing a dystopian near-future we seemed to be heading into. Turns out we were naïve and optimistic back then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
b) why can nothing now be done? he is a lobbyist, not someone who can actually introduce a bill, surely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most do not even know how it is supposed to work, this includes those actually IN government too.
Those that do serve and know, pretty much don't care until they can use the rules unto their own ends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does a drone announce itself as a police officer?
However, when a police officer announces his/her official status & displays a badge, then I must stand down.
How does a drone display a badge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How does a drone announce itself as a police officer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond the NEED for police
I really dont Mind cameras in public locations. WHY the hell do they need a drone? Cheaper then a Chopper?
WHAT he wants to watch the BAR at closing time from a remote location?? The Donut shop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullets travel up too... juss sayin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rubber bullets? Well, you remember Newton's laws, don't you? How well does a Quad Copter react to such things? Just how accurate do you think a small drone would be when firing kinetic rounds, rather than simply dropping something?
And how big would the drone have to be before firing shots of some sort would be easily correctable? (And the answer is: large, but not huge. And not "quad". And probably not excessively accurate would be my guess.)
Admittedly, ED-209 was something of overkill for drone size, but still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A lightweight quad-copter 'drone' using a "recoilless rifle"-type weapon would be able to shoot even very heavy bullets while remaining motionless. That's because a recoilesss rifle has its gun barrel open at both ends, so the kinetic energy resulting from the fired shot (in both directions) is equalized, and therefore there is no recoil.
As far as the challenge of being able to hold a rifle accurately on target while airborne, how about one of these gyroscope-stabilized, remote-controlled rifle platforms? Mounted on drone vehicles and aircraft, police could conduct a SWAT raid while safely sitting behind a desktop computer screen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p411Til7VC4
But the big question is whether armed robots would be more likely or less likely to fire in "self defense" - since "plausible deniability" or "computer error" could easily be claimed whenever innocent people are killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drones
The cops don't need a warrant to fly over your property in a plane or a helicopter, and the cameras they can attach to those aircraft are every bit as hi-tech and intrusive as what you can put on drone. Sometimes more so, because those platforms are larger and can carry much more robust equipment than a little drone can.
It seems like this is another one of those tech panics over the fact that it's a drone, not what it's capable of actually doing.
I've never understood this in the military context, either. People clutch their pearls and get the vapors over drone strikes, except they don't necessarily question the legitimacy of the strikes themselves, but rather that they are done with drones. The implication being they wouldn't have much of a problem with it if the military used an F-16 or an F-22 jet fighter piloted by a person to deliver the same bomb to the same target to kill the same people. It's just doing it with a drone that gets their shorts in a twist. I don't get it. Who cares *how* the bomb reaches its target? If the target is legitimate, then whether it's flown there by a drone or a plane piloted by a person is irrelevant.
Same here. If the surveillance is legal with a helicopter, why should that legal analysis change merely because the pilot is at the other end of a signal instead of sitting in the cockpit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drones
Has this ever been tested in court?
In Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) the majority opinion argued that a person has an expectation of privacy in his or her home and therefore, the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches, even with technology that does not enter the home.
It seems that using hi-tech cameras from airplanes is something that is "not commonly available to the public", which was a deciding factor in Kyllo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drones
...the majority opinion argued that a person has an expectation of privacy in his or her home...
The key phrase there is in his or her home. Any camera or technology, such as infra-red and thermal cameras, that can see inside of a home does require a warrant. Visible light (only) cameras can only see the home and what's outside, not anything inside; thus no warrant required. Police likely won't go after nude sunbathing in the back yard even with an indecent exposure law, but grow marijuana plants in the back yard and it's fair game for the police to start an investigation.
Police helicopters have been around for decades and the concept is no different than being on foot or in a car: if an officer sees something amiss it's fair game to start an investigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Drones
Yeah, I was thinking in terms of an airplane, helicopter or drone viewing into a house through a window from an angle that normally wouldn't be available to a normal person standing on the sidewalk or street.
I know that there's not much expectation of privacy in your own backyard, although United States v. Vargas has pushed back this a little bit by declaring the warrantless video surveillance of a man's front door with camera mounted outside his property to be unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Drones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drones
I disagree. There's an argument about gun control that covers it:
Drones are cheap compared to F-16s and F-22s. They're FAR cheaper to operate. The drone pilot if FAR cheaper to train. You don't risk a pilot. You don't risk the political fall-out of a pilot being captured.
Consider the US's first Predator drone murder, back in 2002. Three men in Afghanistan. Murdered because one of them was tall, so obviously he must be Osama Bin Laden.
Drones make impulsive killing easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drones
> being captured.
I can't believe you're advocating that only systems that put your own countrymen in *more* danger be utilized. That it's somehow unfair for the enemy not to have the opportunity to capture our own personnel.
How about armor on tanks and Humvees? That protects the soldiers, too. Is that an unfair advantage? Should we have to conduct our operations only using methods that put our service personnel in the most vulnerable possible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Drones
> only systems that put your own countrymen
> in *more* danger be utilized.
I can't believe you're advocating only practices that kill a lot of innocent bystanders be utilized.
See? Two can play that game.
Armor on tanks and Humvees does not kill innocent bystanders.
One more time, since you obviously missed it: It's not about fairness. It's about not making impulsive killing easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
> innocent bystanders be utilized.
No more bystanders are killed using drones than using fighter jets. Try again.
Once again, you're complaining about the targets and the accuracy of the bombs hitting them, not the delivery vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
> country we're not at war with and dropping a
> bomb would be an act of war, and likely even a
> war crime
If it's an act of war with a fighter jet, then it's an act of war with a drone.
Once again, it's the bombing that determines the act of war, not the delivery vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
Is that actually what international law says, or just what makes sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
There's no such thing as "international law". There's no International Congress or Parliament out there passing statutes which every country must obey.
There's only treaties and agreements between nations, and those differ from nation to nation. So what constitutes an act of war between Nation A and Nation B isn't necessarily and act of war between Nation A and Nation C.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
Commonly referred to as "international law".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
But if you feel there is no such thing and can back that up with references, by all means suggest the WP article for deletion. ;-)
When discussing acts of war, usually agreements between the major powers (and others) such as the Geneva conventions are relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
> major powers (and others) such as the Geneva conventions
> are relevant.
It would only be relevant if one of the nations involved is one of those "major nations" of which you speak, or is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Otherwise the nation is not bound by either one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Drones
Well that makes sense, because he didn't. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Upon reading this article, I was reminded of ....
As for how large a drone needs to be in order to mount and control a firearm, not very large at all. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=york5EYv2Fo
Looks to me like the drone is handling the recoil quite well. I estimate the quadcopter to be about 2 feet long by about 1.5 feet wide (assuming 7" slide length on pistol which is the slide length of an M1911. I don't know what pistol is mounted on the drone, but the M1911 looks like a reasonable match).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drone-based deployment of directed-energy weapons
Some of this is already covertly going on (though not necessary from drones)
I wish I were joking about this.
Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faceless types hate you
Jello would be so disappointed..
BUG BOMB!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Umm, you haven't been paying much attention lately, have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Less than lethal?
So far my self-defense measures are perfectly legal, BUT, the state of California has a bill pending in their legislature to make it illegal for "civilians" to own protective gear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Less than lethal?
You wear a Kevlar helmet and gas mask every time you leave the house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Less than lethal?
Is everyone nowadays using tech that fails to produce readable text (and, if so, why), or does it just look like that to me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Less than lethal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Less than lethal?
Seems to me there was an article right here on techdirt about that.
Yeah, I'm pretty certain the Cops got, or wanted at least, legislation making body armor on civilians, 100% verboten in der Landt oov der Vree.
Heil Clapper!
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember this guys name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember this guys name
No, he's just one spoke in the wheel. He's just doing his job for his employer, selling drones. Very sneakily, kind of admirably in a twisted sort of way.
But on that day, he won't be pushing the button, he won't be the guy giving the okay, he won't be the guy who procures and deploys them, and he's only part of the "us" that lets them all get away with this. It'll be a team effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]