CIA Has 'Acquired A Taste' For Killing People With Drones; Won't Give It Up

from the that-seems-problematic dept

The US's use of drones is nothing if not controversial, and the overall secrecy around the program -- including the belief that it can be used against Americans as well -- has worried an awful lot of people. Even those in the administration who support the program apparently are uncomfortable with it implicitly, as the Obama administration had drawn up a whole bunch of rules that would limit drone killing... which they wanted to put in place in case Romeny won the election. But, when Obama won, they abandoned the idea. In other words, the position of the administration is basically, "trust us with these drone killing programs... but no one else." Under significant pressure about all of this, the President finally announced in May that the drone killing program would be moved from the CIA to the Defense Department, where it would have more oversight (slightly) and limits.

Except, as Foreign Policy is now reporting, that isn't actually happening and may never happen. The main reason appears to be fairly simple: the CIA loves killing people with these drones, and people in the Defense Department are kind of uncomfortable with doing so. So, the CIA wants to keep control, and the Defense Department doesn't want it.

The U.S. official said that while the platforms and the capabilities are common to either the Agency or the Pentagon, there remain distinctly different approaches to "finding, fixing and finishing" terrorist targets. The two organizations also use different approaches to producing the "intelligence feeds" upon which drone operations rely. Perhaps more importantly, after years of conducting drone strikes, the CIA has developed an expertise and a taste for them. The DOD's appetite to take over that mission may not run very deep.

Yes, the CIA has developed a taste for killing people from the skies with drones controlled from far away. It's like a sport.

Remember when the US banned assassinations by the CIA? Yeah. Weren't those the days?

Filed Under: assassinations, cia, defense department, dod, drones, targeting killing

DailyDirt: Flying Cars & Other Crazy Stuff

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Considering the number of car accidents each year, it's not exactly surprising that flying cars haven't taken off yet. Most drivers can barely handle looking forward, backward and side to side -- and adding up and down is just going to make things worse. Still, the future promised us flying cars, so people are working on building flying cars. Here are just a few links on the topic of personal flying vehicles and some other ill-advised ideas.

• A flying car from Slovakia recently made a test flight after about 20 years of development. The Aeromobil 2.5 isn't the only flying car design out there, but it actually looks like an almost normal car from the front (though its side-view profile looks like a crazy transformer). [url]
• Maybe there shouldn't be flying cars clogging up the sky, but NASA is helping to develop new rules for how to share the air with drones. In 2015, the FAA plans to open up US airspace to unmanned aerial vehicles above 18,000 feet -- but the skies probably won't be fully open to drones until after 2020. [url]
• If more people are going to be flying around in all kinds of crazy contraptions, it might make sense to develop ways to skydive without a parachute. Gary Connery jumped 2,400 feet from a helicopter in a special wingsuit without a parachute, and he fell for almost a minute before crashing into a landing strip made of about 18,600 cardboard boxes. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: aeromobil, drones, flying cars, gary connery, skydiving, unmanned aerial vehicles
Companies: faa, nasa

Latest Snowden Leak Shows NSA's Involvement In US Drone-Based Assassination Program

from the 'targeted-killing' dept

At this point, both the NSA's extensive surveillance programs and the CIA's controversial drone "targeted killing" program (read: assassination program) are known and widely discussed. But the two had not been fully connected until now. There had been some reports from the various reporters who have access to the leaked Snowden documents that the NSA was involved, but the details are finally coming out. The first article comes via Barton Gellman at the Washington Post, detailing the NSA's extensive involvement in helping the CIA find targets to kill, including Hassan Ghul, who was taken out by a drone strike a year ago.

In the search for targets, the NSA has draped a surveillance blanket over dozens of square miles of northwest Pakistan. In Ghul’s case, the agency deployed an arsenal of cyber-espionage tools, secretly seizing control of laptops, siphoning audio files and other messages, and tracking radio transmissions to determine where Ghul might “bed down.”

The e-mail from Ghul’s wife “about her current living conditions” contained enough detail to confirm the coordinates of that household, according to a document summarizing the mission. “This information enabled a capture/kill operation against an individual believed to be Hassan Ghul on October 1,” it said.

The file is part of a collection of records in the Snowden trove that make clear that the drone campaign — often depicted as the CIA’s exclusive domain — relies heavily on the NSA’s ability to vacuum up enormous quantities of e-mail, phone calls and other fragments of signals intelligence, or SIGINT.

The NSA likes to talk about how its focus is on counter-terrorism operations in the form of finding out about potential terrorist activities in order to stop them. It likes to pretend that it isn't so involved in offensive actions. However, the reporting here suggests a different story altogether. The NSA is a key part of the assassination program.

While it may be a good thing to track down terrorists working to attack the US, the potential that these kinds of programs might also be abused is serious. Once again, what becomes clear is that the NSA will apparently do everything possible to get access to the information it wants:

“But if you wanted huge coverage of the FATA, NSA had 10 times the manpower, 20 times the budget and 100 times the brainpower,” the former intelligence official said, comparing the surveillance resources of the NSA to the smaller capabilities of the agency's IOC. The two agencies are the largest in the U.S. intelligence community, with budgets last year of $14.7 billion for the CIA and $10.8 billion for the NSA. “We provided the map,” the former official said, “and they just filled in the pieces.”

In broad terms, the NSA relies on increasingly sophisticated versions of online attacks that are well-known among security experts. Many rely on software implants developed by the agency’s Tailored Access Operations division with code-names such as UNITEDRAKE and VALIDATOR. In other cases, the agency runs “man-in-the-middle” attacks in which it positions itself unnoticed midstream between computers communicating with one another, diverting files for real-time alerts and longer-term analysis in data repositories.

Through these and other tactics, the NSA is able to extract vast quantities of digital information, including audio files, imagery and keystroke logs. The operations amount to silent raids on suspected safe houses and often are carried out by experts sitting behind desks thousands of miles from their targets.

The reach of the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations division extends far beyond Pakistan. Other documents describe efforts to tunnel into systems used by al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Africa, each breach exposing other corridors.

It appears that the attacks are quite effective as well:

The operations are so easy, in some cases, that the NSA is able to start downloading data in less time than it takes the targeted machine to boot up. Last year, a user account on a social media Web site provided an instant portal to an al-Qaeda operative’s hard drive. “Within minutes, we successfully exploited the target,” the document said.

Now, to some extent, you can argue that these kinds of activities are the ones we'd expect the NSA to be taking: using systems to break into communications efforts of terrorists to track them down. But, as the report also notes, this main operative who they caught through use of this system, Ghul, was actually in CIA custody for years before they released him... only to then have the NSA go through this big process to re-find him and take him out with a drone.

Oh, and not just take him out... but then use the NSA to find out for sure that he was dead:

Even after Ghul was killed in Mir Ali, the NSA’s role in the drone strike wasn’t done. Although the attack was aimed at “an individual believed to be” the correct target, the outcome wasn’t certain until later when, “through SIGINT, it was confirmed that Hassan Ghul was in fact killed.”

The NSA and its supporters will undoubtedly spin this to show how good it is that the NSA has these kinds of capabilities, allowing them to track down and dispatch terrorists. But it remains concerning how this level of spying and power (all the way down to assassinations) can easily be combined and used in ways that are even more questionable.

Filed Under: assassination, cia, drones, hassan ghul, nsa, nsa surveillance, targeted killing

EFF Lawsuit Uncovers Abuse Of Surveillance Drones; DHS Files Motion To Suppress Further Transparency

from the it's-so-GREAT-that-we-have-to-sue-our-government-so-often-#americandream dept

About a week ago, the EFF obtained documents (via a FOIA lawsuit) detailing usage of CBP's (Customs and Border Protection) fleet of Predator drones. Nothing much has changed since the last time this subject was visited (back in July): the CBP is still acting like a drone lending library, loaning out its drones to everyone, from the FBI and DEA to DPS offices, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and various military entities. What has changed is just how many agencies have been recipients of the CBP's largesse.

First off, there's a "problem" with the DOJ's internal accounting. According to the recent OIG report, DOJ agencies have only used the CBP's drones twice. The list obtained by the EFF shows that DOJ agencies have utilized these drones more than 100 times. Even an internal inspection failed to uncover the breadth of the CBP's drone deployment.

Beyond this misstatement (or whatever the DOJ will claim it is), the CBP's indiscriminate drone loans have become somewhat of a community outreach program.

The list also includes several county sheriff’s departments. However, CBP has refused to release the names of these agencies, arguing in a recent court filing that to do so would disclose secret law enforcement techniques and would somehow “reveal that CBP is aware of the illegal activities taking place in a particular location.” It’s hard to fathom how releasing the name of a county sheriff department—without any other information about the drone flight for that department—would somehow let the criminals in the area know they’re being watched and help them evade detection.

Worst case scenario, criminals would now be aware there's a chance their local sheriff's department might have sporadic access to surveillance drones and govern themselves accordingly. Seems like a long shot to claim that current investigations might be compromised. If the criminals are staying current with EFF and ACLU document liberations, then it's safe to assume they've already adjusted their activities to account for potential drone usage.

But the argument the CBP is pushing isn't really about protecting ongoing investigations. It's about maintaining the opacity the CBP was used to. It doesn't want to talk about its indiscriminate lending and deployment of surveillance drones because this might uncover illegal uses and constitutional violations. This summary judgment motion is the DHS (which oversees the CBP) indicating it's no longer interested in being forced to be transparent -- a tactic that echoes the UK's intelligence agency reps telling The Guardian while observing the forced hard drive destruction, "You've had your debate. There's no need to write more."

The DOJ certainly doesn't want any more info to be liberated by agencies looking after the rights of Americans. Why? Because it has deployed drones for seven years without putting together even the most minimal of privacy policies. It's finally being forced to do so thanks to the highly-critical OIG report, but it comes roughly seven years too late.

The EFF has expressed the hope that the DOJ will craft policies "with some meat on them," but early responses from various agencies indicate that they're fine with minimal guidance and oversight and point to existing rules governing manned surveillance flights as being more than adequate. According to these officials, there's no "practical difference" between the two. But that's completely wrong.

“The main difference is that UAS will drive down the cost of aerial surveillance quite radically, as well as permit smaller and more invasive and longer flying, or even persistent, aerial platforms for surveillance,” Peter Asaro, a drone expert and professor of media studies at the New School, told Ars. “The implications of these technological shifts are that such surveillance can be done much more readily and may even become ubiquitous. This has an obvious and definite impact on privacy, whether that surveillance is being conducted by police forces and the Department of Justice, or whether it is being conducted by private citizens and companies.”

Even the OIG calls out the DOJ for treating the two as interchangeable:

The OIG recognized what EFF has been saying all along—that the advanced technological capabilities of drones, their low operational costs as compared to manned aircraft, and their ability to conduct “pervasive tracking of an individual’s movements” whether on “public or private property “ raise “unique concerns about privacy and the collection of evidence.”

The government is currently fighting to keep its redactions intact, all the while showing it clearly can't be trusted to responsibly deploy the technology under its command.

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border protection, dhs, drones, transparency
Companies: eff

FEMA Grounds Private Drones That Were Helping To Map Boulder Floods, Threatens To Arrest Operators

from the heckuva-job dept

As you may have heard, Boulder, Colorado has been hit by massive flooding over the past week, and it's been something of a mess. A local company, Falcon UAV, makers of special drones which are built for the government, approved by the FAA, and specialize in using GPS and cameras to generate highly accurate maps, started helping to map the damage with those drones. It was basically making very useful, near real-time maps showing the floods. You'd think that would be useful to, say, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency in charge of helping to coordinate the response to the floods. Instead, FEMA ordered the drones grounded or it would have people from Falcon UAV arrested. Once again, this isn't just some guy with a toy quadcopter trying to take photos. These are drones designed for this sort of thing. As the company explains, this grounding made little sense, and possibly held back relief efforts.

Early Saturday morning Falcon UAV was heading up to Lyons to complete a damage assessment mapping flight when we received a call from our Boulder EOC point of contact who notified us that FEMA had taken over operations and our request to fly drones was not only denied but more specifically we were told by FEMA that anyone flying drones would be arrested. Not being one to bow to federal bureaucrats we still went up to Lyons to do a site survey for how we can conduct a mission in the near future to provide an adequate damage assessment to this storm ravaged community.

While we were up there we noticed that Civil Air Patrol and private aircraft were authorized to fly over the small town tucked into the base of Rockies. Unfortunately due to the high terrain around Lyons and large turn radius of manned aircraft they were flying well out of a useful visual range and didn't employ cameras or live video feed to support the recovery effort. Meanwhile we were grounded on the Lyons high school football field with two Falcons that could have mapped the entire town in less than 30 minutes with another few hours to process the data providing a near real time map of the entire town.

[...] We are very disappointed in FEMAs response to actively prevent the use of UAVs and drone technology when these services were offered for free and at a time when manned helicopters could be used for more critical missions such as evacuations and high mountain search and rescues in inaccessible communities.

Sure, you can understand why federal officials would be initially careful about what was happening, but Falcon UAV had already been working with local Boulder County officials to do this effort, and it was clear that what its drones were doing was helpful. Shutting it down with no explanation and threatening to arrest the operators just seems like FEMA shoving people around because it can.

Filed Under: boulder, drones, fema, flooding, uav
Companies: falcon uav

Journalist For Time Magazine Announces His Eagerness To Defend US Drone Strike Killing Julian Assange

from the journalism! dept

We've already discussed the odd and somewhat sickening way in which certain mainstream journalists have been clearly cheering on the criminalization of investigative journalism, but Time Magazine's Michael Grunwald took it to a new and incredibly disgusting level this weekend, with a now deleted tweet in which he gleefully announced his eagerness to see the US kill Julian Assange, and then to defend the government for doing so:

In case you can't see that, it says:

I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange.

This isn't just cheering on despicable government actions -- including the extrajudicial execution of a fellow journalist -- but it's saying ahead of time that no matter what the situation, he'll be right there to back up the official party line from the government. Today's modern journalist, Michael Grunwald, is going beyond the typical stenographer role of so many journalists covering the government, to the point where he's directly letting the government know that he'll be their propagandist backing up a despicable and heinous act.

This has nothing to do with whether or not anyone likes Assange. From all the reports, he seems like a perfectly dislikable individual. I don't agree with many of his views on the world or how he goes about doing certain things that he does. But I certainly support his ability to stay alive.

Of course, this isn't new territory for Grunwald and Time Magazine. In "defending" his tweet, he pointed to a column he wrote a few months ago, in which he directly supports taking away Americans' rights if it means stopping terrorists.

Eventually, Grunwald deleted the tweet, but not so much because it's despicable and indefensible, but rather because leaving it up, according to Grunwald "gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in." Only an hour later did he apologize, saying that the original tweet was "dumb."

Either way, why would Time Magazine employ someone who flat out joyfully proclaims his eagerness to support the US murdering the head of a competing news organization -- one that has shown what a joke Time Magazine has been in terms of holding the government accountable. What major government abuse stories has Time broken lately?

Filed Under: drones, extrajudicial killing, journalism, julian assange, michael grunwald, propaganda, time magazine

FBI Has Used Drones On Americans To Save A Child... And The Rest Is Secret

from the for-the-children! dept

You may recall a few weeks ago that FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted to using drones to spy on Americans (and that there were no rules about using those drones). In response, Senator Rand Paul asked Mueller for details and those have now been sent, saying that the drones have been used 10 times, though they're very, very, very quick to play down the significance of this (and to highlight how they were used to recover a kidnapped 5-year-old -- "for the children!").

The FBI uses UAVS in very limited circumstances to conduct surveillance when there is a specific, operational need. UAVs have been used for surveillance to support missions related to kidnappings, search and rescue operations, drug interdictions, and fugitive investigations. Since late 2006, the FBI has conducted surveillance using UAVs in eight criminal cases and two national security cases. For example, earlier this year in Alabama, the FBI used UAV surveillance to support the successful rescue of the 5-year-old child who was being held hostage in an underground bunker by Jimmy Lee Dykes. None of the UAVS used by the FBI are armed with either lethal or non--lethal weapons, and the FBI has no plans to use weapons with UAVs. The FBI does not use UAVs to conduct "bulk" surveillance or to conduct general surveillance not related to an investigation or assessment.

Of course, they follow that up by also saying they can't really talk about how they use drones, because, you know, that's secret.

While we share your interest in transparency concerning the use of law enforcement and national security tools, we are not in a position to disclose publicly more detailed information concerning the Bureau's specific use of UAVS. Such additional information is "Law Enforcement Sensitive" or, in some cases, classified, based on the need to protect the effectiveness of this capability in law enforcement and national security matters. We have enclosed a classified addendum that provides more detailed information in response to your inquiry. We request that you not disseminate the information in the addendum without prior consultation with the FBI.

Yeah. So, they use drones "to save the kidnapped hostage children!" and [REDACTED]. That's not particularly comforting.

Filed Under: america, children, drones, fbi, rand paul, robert mueller, surveillance

DOJ: Some Constitutional Rights Can't Be Tested In Courts, Like Our Ability To Kill You With A Drone

from the say-what-now? dept

Another day, another crazy claim from the DOJ. The latest concerns a legal challenge to the administration's ability to use drone strikes against US citizens abroad. The US has been arguing that this issue cannot be tried in court because it's outside the court's jurisdiction and because of national security reasons. Most ridiculously of all, the DOJ has argued that there are Constitutional rights that cannot be challenged in court:

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Hauck argued there was a difference between having a constitutional right—which he said could be protected by the executive and legislative branches—and being able to make constitutional claims in court.

Think about that statement for a second. It's not just legally wrong, it's horrifying. Thankfully, Judge Rosemary Collyer found this claim equally bizarre.

"I'm really troubled…that you cannot explain to me where the end of it is," Collyer said. "That, yes, they have constitutional rights but there is no remedy for those constitutional rights."

In case you're wondering, Hauck apparently is relying on the Political Question Doctrine, which tends to be applied very narrowly and is only supposed to mean that courts should not take on cases that present a "political" question rather than a "legal" question. But, a Constitutional issue over whether or not the US government has the right to kill a US citizen like that certainly seems like a legal question, not a political one.

Hauck further argued the executive and legislative branches could be trusted to protect the rights of citizens. In other words: "Hey, courts, don't worry about US drone strikes killing US citizens, Congress and the administration have this one covered." But, um, that's not how it works. We have three branches of government for a reason, and the checks and balances they provide is the key reason. Having an administration that is in charge of using the drone strikes, along with a very compliant Congress, as the only ones capable of determining if the use is appropriate seems to completely ignore the basic premise of the checks and balances of government, especially when it comes to the Constitutional rights of US citizens.

"The problem is, how far does your argument take you?" Collyer said, adding that she found it "a little disconcerting" that the government was arguing that there could be no court review of a decision by the executive and Congress to target American citizens abroad.

It's good to see the judge is concerned, but this case has a long, long way to go, and the administration is going to try as hard as possible to keep this issue out of court entirely.

Filed Under: administration, brian hauck, constitution, courts, doj, drone strikes, drones, political questions doctrine, rosemary collyer

Border Patrol Drone Fleet Straying Far From The Borders When Not Being Loaned Out To Whatever Agency Comes Asking

from the the-CBP:-everywhere-you-want-to-be dept

"How much spying on Americans is too much spying?" is the question no one seems to be asking, unless prompted by document leaks or a handful of legislators. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has had access to drones for a few years now, mainly using them to (you guessed it) patrol the borders. The immigration legislation that is working its way through Congress seeks to expand the CBP's drone armada.

This wouldn't seem to be much of an issue if these drones were used as intended. Instead, the CBP has been acting as a drone lending library, loaning out its drones to other government agencies.

As Congress considers a new immigration law that would expand the fleet of unmanned drones along the border, the agency in charge of border protection is increasingly offering the military-grade drones it already owns to domestic law enforcement agencies and has considered equipping them with “nonlethal weapons,” according to documents recently made public...

The flight logs provided by the agency show that it has become increasingly generous with its unmanned aerial vehicles. They have been used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the North Dakota Army National Guard, Texas Department of Public Safety and the United States Forest Service, among others.

Agencies that have used the 10 Predator drones owned by the Customs and Border Protection Agency have deployed them to investigate fishing violations, search for missing persons and inspect levees along the Mississippi River, among other things.

The uses listed here are acceptable, with the drones acting in an investigative fashion targeting specific areas or activities. The concern is more with the fact that each drone is capable of 20 hours of flight between refuelings and usage by other agencies doesn't seem to be subject to oversight.

Skeptics say the use of drones raises the prospect of ubiquitous monitoring, especially by law enforcement, and several states have already proposed measures to restrict their use by police.

“What concerns me is the lack of clear, transparent rules for domestic drone use,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from Northern California, who recently introduced legislation to limit their use in domestic airspace. She said she was concerned about “the government’s increased interest in using drones for domestic surveillance and security, including the potential use of force. But the law today has weak requirements for individual privacy protection, transparency of drone use, and limitations on arming drones with weapons.”

The CBP itself has already broadened its usage of the drones, mainly by broadening its definition of the word "border," according to the EFF.

According to the documents, CBP already appears to be flying drones well within the Southern and Northern US borders, and for a wide variety of non-border patrol reasons. What’s more — the agency is planning to increase its Predator drone fleet to 24 and its drone surveillance to 24 hours per day / 7 days per week by 2016.

The FBI's usage of these drones is also problematic. A few weeks ago, the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, admitted the FBI was using drones for domestic surveillance, although he claimed it was done in a "very, very minimal, very seldom" way. Mueller said the issue was "worthy of debate and legislation down the road." One would think the debate and legislation should have preceded the drone usage, but this is how things are done, apparently. Get the fleet up and circling overland before agreeing to discuss it further at some undetermined point in the future.

Not only is there no legislation covering the FBI's drone usage, but the FBI itself couldn't even be bothered to whip up some internal controls before sending the drones skyward.

[Mueller] said the FBI was in "the initial stages" of developing privacy guidelines to balance security threats with civil liberty concerns.

As for the CBP, its drone usage is escalating sharply.

CBP’s three years of daily flight logs detail when, where and how the agency flew its Predator drones on behalf of other agencies. These logs show a marked increase in drone flights over the years. In 2010, CBP appears to have flown its Predators about 30 times on behalf of other agencies, but this number increased to more than 160 times in 2011 and more than 250 times in 2012.

While CBP blacked out important information about dates, geographic location of flights, and, in most cases, agency names, these logs do provide some insights into the agency’s drone program. For example, we’ve learned that CBP conducted drone surveillance for law enforcement agencies ranging from the FBI, ICE, the US Marshals, and the Coast Guard to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the North Dakota Army National Guard, and the Texas Department of Public Safety. These missions ranged from specific drug-related investigations, searches for missing persons, border crossings and fishing violations to general “surveillance imagery” and “aerial reconnaissance” of a given location.

Again, as is the case with the FBI, the CBP has provided no details on what it's doing to protect the privacy of American citizens. The EFF is calling for a halt of the CBP's drone flights until it answers a few questions on flight locations, privacy protection and its intentions to arm these drones, with lethal or non-lethal weapons.

Not every drone is bad news and they can serve some very important functions. Unfortunately, the agencies using these drones don't have a very solid track record when it comes to civil liberties. They've also demonstrated they'd rather get their drones airborne first, and sort out the impact on American citizens at some point in the future. It's a clear indication of how these agencies view the rights of Americans: as an annoyance to be dealt with only when forced to.

Filed Under: border patrol, drones, loans

Turkish Police Shoot Down Surveillance Drone During Istanbul Protests

from the it-had-to-happen dept

As the growing number of Techdirt stories on the subject testify, drones are becoming a more familiar part of modern life. But their presence can add a new element to situations. An obvious example is during demonstrations, where drones can be used to monitor those taking part -- but also the authorities' reaction. As with cases where members of the public have used smartphones to capture police abuse, so drones offer the possibility of revealing questionable police activity that might in the past have gone unrecorded.

Given that potential to show the forces of law and order in an unflattering light, it was perhaps inevitable that the police would eventually take action against a drone that was monitoring them -- in this case, by shooting it down:

Tuesday afternoon on June 11th 2013, Police was violently attacking peaceful protestors. Police fired guns at one of our [remote control] drone during the protests in Taksim square, Istanbul. Police aimed directly at the camera. Due to the impact on the camera (it did have a housing) the last video was not saved properly on the SD card. The camera and drone were both broken. Managed to keep the SD card.

Here's a video of the take-down:

The drone's images before its violent end provide amazingly clear pictures of what is happening on the ground, and you can see why the authorities might not be very happy about that:

But as a Geek.com article on the incident points out, when you can soon buy a tiny $50 drone that streams straight to your smartphone for uploading to video sharing sites, the police may find themselves being monitored by tens or even hundreds of such devices during their actions against demonstrations, which makes shooting them all down problematic. Doubtless the authorities will come up with an answer to that (a squadron of police drones engaging in a dog-fight, perhaps?), but citizen drone users will then find a way around that -- perhaps flying small, hard-to-spot drones very high in the sky, and using high-quality cameras with zoom lenses. And so the drones arms race will continue.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: drones, reporting, turkey, witnessing