Self-Proclaimed 'Vigilante' Instrumental In First Prostitution Bust By Drone
from the extra-eyes-in-the-skies dept
Private drones are the new CCTV. As Cyrus Farivar words it for Ars Technica, the age of sousveillance is upon us.
An Oklahoma man has received the distinction of being the first "john" in the state to be criminally prosecuted and arrested after being caught in the act by a drone. Local police records show Douglas Blansett, 75, was arrested and released on Thursday. That's according to local anti-prostitution Oklahoma City-based activist and private investigator Brian Bates, who has run JohnTV.com for years, a collection of videos of suspected sex workers and their johns.This shows what's possible with surveillance equipment d/b/a hobbyist technology. Not that Bates is your average hobbyist. Bates, as noted above, is both a prostitution-focused "activist" and a salesman -- albeit one that sells recordings of sex acts to news agencies or whoever else is willing to license the footage. So, much like law enforcement, Bates profits from criminalized acts of consenting behavior between adults.
It was Bates' drone that earlier this year took video of what he believed was a man picking up a woman named Amanda Zolicoffer that he described as a "known prostitute." Both Blansett and Zolicoffer now face a misdemeanor charge of "engaging in an act of lewdness."
Bates and his drone followed a vehicle after noticing the driver had picked up a prostitute. The drone was deployed because a third vehicle also trailed the "couple," presumably belonging to the prostitute's pimp. Bates understandably felt his camera wouldn't be welcomed by the pimp, so he deployed his drone and the rest is recorded history.
It should be noted, Bates -- like other purveyors of "reality" programming -- apparently felt reality just wasn't interesting enough. A decade ago, he was arrested for felony pandering (a charge normally reserved for pimps) and a misdemeanor count of "aiding in prostitution."
According to the below Oklahoma City Police Department report, Brian Bates, 34, orchestrated the public encounters so he could peddle the resulting videotape to media outlets (some of Bates's surveillance tapes are offered for sale on his web site).It also should be noted the charges may have not been entirely legitimate. Maggie McNeill -- an actual activist and sex worker advocate -- noted that the arrest may have stemmed from a "long-running" feud between Bates and a local district attorney.
[I]f a john was a "regular," Bates asked prostitutes to give "specific signals" so he would know not to bother rolling tape. Investigators also noted that, like any good auteur, Bates "gave direction to the prostitutes on how to complete the act with a high probability of success," as well as tips on how to spot an undercover cop.
That being said, there's nothing stopping this sort of thing from happening in the future and it's likely it won't just be private drone owners involved. If the act occurs in public, there's no way to claim any sort of invasion of privacy, especially when tied to a criminal act. Plenty of police departments are utilizing their own drones for surveillance. From a cost effectiveness perspective, flying drones to net misdemeanor charges doesn't make much sense. But all it takes is a little political pressure to trigger a reassessment of priorities.
Bates claims he's only targeting the "worst" kind of prostitution and makes a small nod towards privacy. But it's a meaningless gesture.
Bates said he focuses his efforts on “street, forced and organized prostitution,” not people who willfully engage in the profession behind closed doors.More honestly, he's taking the secure legal route -- acts captured in public areas. If Bates could put a camera behind closed doors with minimal legal liability, I'm sure he would. So, his white knighting is borne of legal conveniences, not some genuine concern for supposedly-victimized prostitutes. (See also: the details of his arrest for pandering, which alleged Bates worked with prostitutes to ensure only the best -- and most sellable -- footage was captured.)
“I'm only dealing with people who are literally out there out of desperation,” he said. “Either because a pimp's making them do it or because an addiction is making them do it. Nobody's making the john do it.”
Whether or not you agree with Bates' "vigilantism," the implications are clear: public areas are open to "surveillance" by everyone, not just law enforcement. Private drones can easily act as souped-up Neighborhood Watch programs. As the barrier to entry continues to drop, we can expect more recordings from our friends and neighbors to fill in the "gaps" in law enforcement "coverage."
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: brian bates, bust, drones, johntv, law enforcement, prostitution
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FAA fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAA fine
and they can happily work from home
eating donuts on their sofa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*This would definitely be illegal under Arizona's revenge porn law but since that is unconstitutional in the first place it is something of a moot point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I call discrimination. If he were a Washington, DC man you'd be calling him a "top lobbyist."
[ 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 ]
Re: signal the drone into a max-power descent.
??? .... like the OFF switch?
Naaa, just launch one of these instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: signal the drone into a max-power descent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkHkWy9S4nw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's also violating the FAA rules for commercial flight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it's nice to finally see an investigative backstory of the kind that is so often missing from corporate 'mainstream' media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I imagine his wife is very grateful he has a hobby. Next time, get a room, or a callgirl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good to see it described in the order it really happened...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Discrimination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Discrimination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Discrimination
" Engaging sex publicly has a reasonable likelihood of forcing someone who has not consented to be involved with your sexual activity which is unacceptable".
What do you mean? If you get too close to the fornicators they'll drag you down and screw you too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Discrimination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Discrimination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOVE your comment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a trivial example, camping in a national park. Or using the restroom at a playground.
Something that is quite close to this situation is changing into a swimsuit while in your car near a beach. You can't expect privacy if you change out in the open, but you can if you aren't visible from any normal viewing angle. Just like high-mounted windows on a park restroom aren't an invitation for perv pictures, not every window is an invitation to take drone video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Authoritarianism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EXACTLY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Authoritarianism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The man who enriches himself off of other people problems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]