Skynet Is Here?

[Restorium2]

A lot of private individuals have drones now. They are probably all over the place and there's no rules for them except they can't be close to an airport.

[Dr. Bob]

Controlled airspace starts between 700 and I believe 1200 feet off the ground.  Under that is anyone's game.  Depending on the population density, you can't approach within 500-1500 feet of a person though (that includes occupied structures).  At least those are the rules for airplanes/helicopters in the private world.  Cops might have different rules.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/images/airsp.jpg

 

It is a little confusing and depends on airport size.  That will give you an idea (Class G airspace is anything goes).

 

here are examples of airport sizes to help with the chart

 

Detroit- Class B

Lansing- Class C

Kalamazoo- Class D

Clare/Mt. Pleasant- both non-towered self announce

 

Dr. Bob

[cheapshades]

what would you pay for a glowing cannabis plant ??

 

Not bad enough dealing with red eye.  "Son, your eyes are glowing, please step out of the vehicle."

[cheapshades]

No-Fly Drone Map

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2704003/A-no-fly-DRONE-Interactive-map-reveals-locations-U-S-unmanned-aircraft-banned-skies.html

Edited July 24, 2014 by cheapshades

[trichcycler]

are there similar rules for RC vehicles like helicopters and saucers owned by civilians?

[knucklehead bob]

FAA can’t regulate small RC aircraft as “drones,” judge rules

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/faa-cant-regulate-small-rc-aircraft-as-drones-judge-rules/

 

Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code

Effective January 1, 2014 

 

A. GENERAL: A model aircraft is a non-human-carrying aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere. It may not exceed limitations of this code and is intended exclusively for sport, recreation, education and/or competition. All model flights must be conducted in accordance with this safety code and any additional rules specific to the flying site.

1. Model aircraft will not be flown:
   (a) Inacarelessorrecklessmanner.
   (b) At a location where model aircraft activities are prohibited.

2. Model aircraft pilots will:
   (a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft.

   2. (b)  See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.)

   3. ©  Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.

   4. (d)  Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement.

   5. (e)  Not exceed a takeoff weight, including fuel, of 55 pounds unless in compliance with the AMA Large Model Airplane program. (AMA Document 520-A.)

   6. (f)  Ensure the aircraft is identified with the name and address or AMA number of the owner on the inside or affixed to the outside of the model aircraft. (This

      does not apply to model aircraft flown indoors.)

   7. (g)  Not operate aircraft with metal-blade propellers or with gaseous boosts except for helicopters operated under the provisions of AMA Document #555.

   8. (h)  Notoperatemodelaircraftwhileundertheinfluenceofalcoholorwhileusinganydrugthatcouldadverselyaffectthepilot’sabilitytosafelycontrolthe

      model.

   9. (i)  Not operate model aircraft carrying pyrotechnic devices that explode or burn, or any device which propels a projectile or drops any object that creates a

      hazard to persons or property.
      Exceptions:
       Free Flight fuses or devices that burn producing smoke and are securely attached to the model aircraft during flight.
       Rocket motors (using solid propellant) up to a G-series size may be used provided they remain attached to the model during flight. Model rockets may

      be flown in accordance with the National Model Rocketry Safety Code but may not be launched from model aircraft.
       Officially designated AMA Air Show Teams (AST) are authorized to use devices and practices as defined within the Team AMA Program Document.

      (AMA Document #718.)

   10. (j)  Not operate a turbine-powered aircraft, unless in compliance with the AMA turbine regulations. (AMA Document #510-A.)

3. Model aircraft will not be flown in AMA sanctioned events, air shows or model demonstrations unless:
   (a) Theaircraft,controlsystemandpilotskillshavesuccessfullydemonstratedallmaneuversintendedoranticipatedpriortothespecificevent. (b) Aninexperiencedpilotisassistedbyanexperiencedpilot.

4. When and where required by rule, helmets must be properly worn and fastened. They must be OSHA, DOT, ANSI, SNELL or NOCSAE approved or comply with comparable standards.

B. RADIO CONTROL (RC)

1. All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others.

2. A successful radio equipment ground-range check in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations will be completed before the first flight of a new or

   repaired model aircraft.

3. At all flying sites a safety line(s) must be established in front of which all flying takes place. (AMA Document #706.)

   1. (a)  Only personnel associated with flying the model aircraft are allowed at or in front of the safety line.

   2. (b)  At air shows or demonstrations, a straight safety line must be established.

   3. ©  An area away from the safety line must be maintained for spectators.

   4. (d)  Intentional flying behind the safety line is prohibited.

4. RC model aircraft must use the radio-control frequencies currently allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Only individuals properly licensed by the FCC are authorized to operate equipment on Amateur Band frequencies.

5. RC model aircraft will not knowingly operate within three (3) miles of any pre-existing flying site without a frequency-management agreement. (AMA Documents #922 and #923.)

6. With the exception of events flown under official AMA Competition Regulations, excluding takeoff and landing, no powered model may be flown outdoors closer than 25 feet to any individual, except for the pilot and the pilot's helper(s) located at the flightline.

7. Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch an outdoor model aircraft in flight while it is still under power, except to divert it from striking an individual.

8. RC night flying requires a lighting system providing the pilot with a clear view of the model’s attitude and orientation at all times. Hand-held illumination systems are inadequate for night flying operations.

9. The pilot of an RC model aircraft shall:

   1. (a)  Maintaincontrolduringtheentireflight,maintainingvisualcontactwithoutenhancementotherthanbycorrectivelensesprescribedforthepilot.

   2. (b)  Fly using the assistance of a camera or First-Person View (FPV) only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #550.

   3. ©  FlyusingtheassistanceofautopilotorstabilizationsystemonlyinaccordancewiththeproceduresoutlinedinAMADocument#560.

C. FREE FLIGHT

1. Must be at least 100 feet downwind of spectators and automobile parking when the model aircraft is launched.

2. Launch area must be clear of all individuals except mechanics, officials, and other fliers.

3. An effective device will be used to extinguish any fuse on the model aircraft after the fuse has completed its function.

D. CONTROL LINE

1. The complete control system (including the safety thong where applicable) must have an inspection and pull test prior to flying.

2. The pull test will be in accordance with the current Competition Regulations for the applicable model aircraft category.

3. Model aircraft not fitting a specific category shall use those pull-test requirements as indicated for Control Line Precision Aerobatics.

4. The flying area must be clear of all utility wires or poles and a model aircraft will not be flown closer than 50 feet to any above-ground electric utility lines.

5. The flying area must be clear of all nonessential participants and spectators before the engine is started. 

[purple pimpernel]

 

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeking To Use Drones For Domestic Policing

 

 

- See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2012/12/20/u-s-law-enforcement-seeking-to-use-drones-for-domestic-policing/#sthash.dLpu6IuV.dpuf

 

Electronic Freedom Foundation board member and drug policy reform activist John Gilmore memo:

 

EFF.ORG (where I’m on the board) filed a Freedom of Information request to FAA about “drones” (Unmanned Aerial Systems, or UAS’s).

 

It’s taken the FAA a long time to release info; they sent us another batch recently. This includes several thousand pages of drone authorizations for law enforcement agencies, universities, and the military.

 

View EFF-created map of law enforcement ‘drone’ projects here.

 

Once again, we see in these records that law enforcement agencies want to use drones to support a whole host of police work. However, many of the agencies are most interested in using drones in drug investigations. For example, the Queen Anne County, Maryland Sheriff’s Department, which is partnering with the federal Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security and the Navy, applied for a drone license to search farm fields for pot,”surveil people of interest” (including “watching open drug market transactions before initiating an arrest”), and to perform “aerial observation of houses when serving warrants.”

 

The Gadsden Alabama Police Department also wanted to use its drone for drug enforcement purposes like conducting covert surveillance of drug transactions, while Montgomery County, Texas wanted to use the camera and “FLIR systems” (thermal imaging) on its ShadowHawk drone to support SWAT and narcotics operations by providing “real time area surveillance of the target during high risk operations.” Another Texas law enforcement agency-the Arlington Police Department-also wanted to fly its “Leptron Avenger” drone for narcotics and police missions. Interestingly, the Leptron Avenger can be outfitted with LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) technology. While LIDAR can be used to create high-resolution images of the earth’s surface, it is also used in high tech police speed guns-begging the question of whether drones will soon be used for minor traffic violations.

 

More disturbing than these proposed uses is the fact that some law enforcement agencies, like the Orange County, Florida Sheriff’s Department and Mesa County, Colorado Sheriff, have chosen arbitrarily to withhold some or-in Orange County’s case-almost all information about their drone flights-including what type of drone they’re flying, where they’re flying it, and what they want to use it for-claiming that releasing this information would pose a threat to police work. This risk seems extremely far-fetched, given that other agencies mentioned above and in prior posts have been forthcoming and that even the US Air Force feels comfortable releasing information about where it’s flying drones around the country.

 

EFF news release and links found here. <-------interesting links

 

- See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2012/12/20/u-s-law-enforcement-seeking-to-use-drones-for-domestic-policing/#sthash.dLpu6IuV.dpuf

 

ACLU article.......

https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones

 

U.S. law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance. Routine aerial surveillance would profoundly change the character of public life in America. Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a “surveillance society” in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the government. Drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with (nonlethal for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas. Read the ACLU’s full report on domestic drones here.

 

Numerous states are considering (and some have passed) legislation regulating the use of drones. You can see a chart summarizing the developments around the country here. Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to change airspace rules to make it much easier for police nationwide to use domestic drones, but the law does not include badly needed privacy protections. The ACLU recommends the following safeguards:

 

USAGE LIMITS: Drones should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act.

 

DATA RETENTION: Images should be retained only when there is reasonable suspicion that they contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or trial.

 

POLICY: Usage policy on domestic drones should be decided by the public’s representatives, not by police departments, and the policies should be clear, written, and open to the public.

 

ABUSE PREVENTION & ACCOUNTABILITY: Use of domestic drones should be subject to open audits and proper oversight to prevent misuse.

 

WEAPONS: Domestic drones should not be equipped with lethal or non-lethal weapons.

 

Click here for information on the U.S. government’s use of drones overseas for targeted killings.

 

 

 

Use of Unmanned Drones by Law Enforcement Raises Fourth Amendment Concerns

 

 

Congress passed a bill earlier this year broadening both governmental and commercial use of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as "drones." Drones have seen extensive use by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they appear along U.S. borders on a regular basis. Their use within the United States, however, gives rise to a wide range of concerns about privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. Law enforcement has made at least one arrest with information obtained by drone, and a court has upheld the arrest. Prior search and seizure decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court may provide guidance on the use of drones in domestic law enforcement, but the laws are truly being written on the fly.

The legislation, passed by Congress in early February 2012, requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to revise its procedures for authorizing drone use, and it mandates commercial use of drones by September 30, 2015. Current law only allows private individuals to use unmanned vehicles as a hobby, with an upper limit of four hundred feet within the user's line of sight. In April 2012, the FAA released a list of businesses and organizations that have requested authorization to operate drones within the U.S. The list currently includes law enforcement and other state agencies, colleges, and universities. It could expand to include private corporations within a few years. The FAA authorization process covers drones ranging from small models costing $100 or less to the multi-million dollar models used by the military.

A report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), released in September, addresses concerns about the effect of drones on Fourth Amendment rights. The most relevant precedents might be the cases addressing manned aerial vehicles. The Supreme Court has held that visual aerial surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment. In California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986), the Court held that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by observing the fenced-in backyard of a marijuana suspect from a helicopter at 1,000 feet, because the surface of the backyard was exposed to public view. In Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), however, the Court held that the use of infrared detection to identify marijuana cultivation inside a suspect's house did violate the Fourth Amendment. Jurisprudence surrounding drone surveillance may follow the reasoning of these cases.

The first reported arrest in the U.S. based on drone surveillance occurred in June 2011 in Lakota, North Dakota. Police reportedly tried to investigate missing cows on a 3,000-acre farm, and met with armed resistance. They called in reinforcements, including a Predator-B drone belonging to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The drone, circling at an altitude of two miles, pinpointed the location of three suspects and determined that they were not armed. Police used that information to close in and arrest the suspects. A court denied a motion to dismiss brought by one of the defendants, Rodney Brossart, in August 2012. The court held that the use of the drone did not appear improper, and that the charges against Brossart did not rely on information obtained by the drone. The question of material evidence obtained by a drone, therefore, remains unsettled.

 

http://www.texascriminallawyerblog.com/2012/10/use-of-unmanned-drones-by-law-enforcement-raises-fourth-amendment-concerns.html

 

 

 

 

Border Drone Payload -- Marijuana at $70K a Pound, But Immigrants Come Cheaper

 

NOTE:>>>>Measured in terms of the confiscated marijuana, the UAV program cost U.S. taxpayers roughly $70,000 to help the Border Patrol seize each pound of the smuggled illegal drug.

Despite having at least three more Predators deployed in the 2006-2008 period, the number of arrests and seizures aided by UAVs did not experience a corresponding rate of increase. Arrests doubled over the next three years, while >>>>>seizures of marijuana increased about >>>>>175%. !!!

 

 

 

http://borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/border-drone-payload-marijuana-at-70k.html

 

The Border Patrol points to the increasing number of arrests and amount of drugs seized as evidence of UAV benefits.

 

In promoting expanded UAV deployment, CBP has downplayed widely acknowledged concerns about UAVs such as their high failure rate and their limited access to U.S. airspace. Instead of assessing the appropriateness and effectiveness of its UAV program, CBP instead highlights how its aerial surveillance has contributed to stopping illegal border crossers and illegal drugs from entering the country – categorized broadly by DHS as “dangerous people and goods.”

 

The Predator – whose latest version is called the Reaper by the Pentagon -- has proved most valuable in search-and-destroy military missions rather than in intelligence missions (mainly because of the huge amount of nontargeted video that must be processed and reviewed). In its Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, which projects potential UAV use over the next three decades, DOD says that the primary mission of the Reaper (latest version of Predator) – officially called MQ-9 --- is “to act as a persistent hunter-killer for critical time-sensitive targets and secondarily to act as an intelligence collection asset.”

 

However, Homeland Security uses Predators primarily for information gathering, not actually hunting. While their cameras do pick up the targets – mainly illegal border crossers – the UAVs can’t hunt them down. The images must be transferred by satellite to the command and control centers for processing by industry operators and Border Patrol agents.

 

Before the first Predator crashed, after 959 hours on patrol, it contributed to 1,793 arrests of illegal border crossers and the seizure of 200 pounds of marijuana.

 

As the number of Predators owned by CBP has increased and the UAV program has lengthened, those numbers have increased – rising to 3,900 arrests and 13,660 pounds of marijuana by March 2007 and by early 2009 more than 4,766 arrests and 22,823 pounds of marijuana. UAV flight time rose to nearly 2,000 hours by 2007 and more than 3,000 hours by 2009, according to the Border Patrol.

 

Per Unit Costs

 

At the price of $14 million, the UAV program cost U.S. taxpayers about $7,800 to catch each illegal border crosser.

 

(The $14 million figure is what DHS paid for its first Predator system. This price included a remote piloting team and other General Atomics support. But it does not include the costs of making the actual arrests and seizures, which includes the crews of Border Patrol agents, their vehicles, and often manned aircraft.)

 

Measured in terms of the confiscated marijuana, the UAV program cost U.S. taxpayers roughly $70,000 to help the Border Patrol seize each pound of the smuggled illegal drug.

 

Since 2005 the costs of the UAV program have steadily increased and the benefits have steadily decreased. The second CBP contract with General Atomics for two UAVs cost $34 million.

 

Despite having at least three more Predators deployed in the 2006-2008 period, the number of arrests and seizures aided by UAVs did not experience a corresponding rate of increase. Arrests doubled over the next three years, while seizures of marijuana increased about 175%.

 

In addition to the high cost of the arrests and seizures attributed to UAV assistance, what also stands out about CBP’s UAV program are two trends: 1) the only drug seized has been marijuana, and 2) the slow rate of increase in UAV operational time despite the higher number of UAVs.

 

CBP says it maintains a “risk-based” standard for its drug seizure operations. But in the case of the UAV program, the drones only aided Border Patrol agents seize the least harmful (indeed many medical and psychological experts assert that marijuana can actually be beneficial when properly used) of illegal drugs.

 

Which makes sense, of course, since marijuana, being bulkier and also less valuable in the market, is routinely smuggled across the border by “mules” on foot, while more care and expense is generally given to smuggling heroin and cocaine using planes and vehicles legally crossing through ports of entry. (For more information on CBP’s “risk-based” drug seizures, see Immigrant Crackdown Joins Failed Wars on Crime and Drugs.)

 

During the lifespan of the first Predator at CBP, the drone flew nearly 1,000 hours, but with a fleet of at least three and as many as five drones over the next three years, flight time increased by only some 2,000 hours.

 

 

 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles with Little Air

 

The slow pace of increasing UAV flight time is not unexpected.

 

DHS has been wishing and hoping that the mounting combined pressure from DOD, UAV industry, congressional UAV caucus, and Homeland Security itself would result in the opening of more public air space to UAV deployments at home. As it is, the DHS use of UAVs relies on military bases for their command centers, military airspaces along the border, and special arrangements between DOD, DHS, and the FAA for flights that penetrate national airspace.

 

DHS says it is working closely with DOD and the FAA to “remove current flight restrictions on Border Patrol Southwest border operations” and its use of national airspace. One possible solution being explored by DHS’ Science & Technology division is to install sense and avoid capabilities on UAVs that would automatically redirect UAV flights away from other air traffic.

 

Among its other objectives, the Congressional UAV Caucus is pressuring for “UAV-friendly laws” that would permit UAVs to be deployed freely in national airspace.

DOD has taken the lead in the drive to change FAA regulations to allow UAV use. A DOD directive on Sept. 26, 2006 encouraged military nonarmed UAV support domestically for homeland defense and defense support of civil authorities. The Pentagon’s determination to introduce greater UAV use for nonmilitary use at home is evident in its FY2009-Fy2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap.

 

Until FAA, DOD, and DHS, and the UAV industry establish comprehensive guidelines for UAV use of national airspace, FAA and DOD are incrementally expanding UAV flight permission starting with the segregated airspace above military bases and extending to certain low-density airspaces such as the Arizona border. According to one assessment by a U.S. Army War College study, UAV are “increasingly ranging outside restricted military airspace as demand for a persistent airborne presence grows.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US: Domestic use of aerial drones by law enforcement likely to prompt privacy debate

WashingtonPost / Peter Finn / 1,23,2011

 

http://marijuana.com/community/threads/us-domestic-use-of-aerial-drones-by-law-enforcement-likely-to-prompt-privacy-debate.277325/

 

 

AUSTIN - The suspect's house, just west of this city, sat on a hilltop at the end of a steep, exposed driveway. Agents with the Texas Department of Public Safety believed the man inside had a large stash of drugs and a cache of weapons, including high-caliber rifles.

 

As dawn broke, a SWAT team waiting to execute a search warrant wanted a last-minute aerial sweep of the property, in part to check for unseen dangers. But there was a problem: The department's aircraft section feared that if it put up a helicopter, the suspect might try to shoot it down. So the Texas agents did what no state or local law enforcement agency had done before in a high-risk operation: They launched a drone. A bird-size device called a Wasp floated hundreds of feet into the sky and instantly beamed live video to agents on the ground. The SWAT team stormed the house and arrested the suspect.

 

"The nice thing is it's covert," said Bill C. Nabors Jr., chief pilot with the Texas DPS, who in a recent interview described the 2009 operation for the first time publicly. "You don't hear it, and unless you know what you're looking for, you can't see it."

 

The drone technology that has revolutionized warfare in Iraq, AfghanistanPakistan is entering the national airspace: Unmanned aircraft are patrolling the border with Mexico, searching for missing persons over difficult terrain, flying into hurricanes to collect weather data, photographing traffic accident scenes and tracking the spread of forest fires. But the operation outside Austin presaged what could prove to be one of the most far-reaching and potentially controversial uses of drones: as a new and relatively cheap surveillance tool in domestic law enforcement.

 

For now, the use of drones for high-risk operations is exceedingly rare. The Federal Aviation Administration - which controls the national airspace - requires the few police departments with drones to seek emergency authorization if they want to deploy one in an actual operation. Because of concerns about safety, it only occasionally grants permission. But by 2013, the FAA expects to have formulated new rules that would allow police across the country to routinely fly lightweight, unarmed drones up to 400 feet above the ground - high enough for them to be largely invisible eyes in the sky.

 

Such technology could allow police to record the activities of the public below with high-resolution, infrared and thermal-imaging cameras. One manufacturer already advertises one of its small systems as ideal for "urban monitoring." The military, often a first user of technologies that migrate to civilian life, is about to deploy a system in Afghanistan that will be able to scan an area the size of a small town. And the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence to seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious activity.

 

But when drones come to perch in numbers over American communities, they will drive fresh debates about the boundaries of privacy. The sheer power of some of the cameras that can be mounted on them is likely to bring fresh search-and-seizure cases before the courts, and concern about the technology's potential misuse could unsettle the public.

 

"Drones raise the prospect of much more pervasive surveillance," said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. "We are not against them, absolutely. They can be a valuable tool in certain kinds of operations. But what we don't want to see is their pervasive use to watch over the American people."

 

The police are likely to use drones in tactical operations and to view clearly public spaces. Legal experts say they will have to obtain a warrant to spy on private homes.

 

FAA authorization

 

As of Dec. 1, according to the FAA, there were more than 270 active authorizations for the use of dozens of kinds of drones. Approximately 35 percent of these permissions are held by the Defense Department, 11 percent by NASA and 5 percent by the Department of Homeland Security, including permission to fly Predators on the northern and southern borders.

 

Other users are law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, as well as manufacturers and academic institutions.

 

For now, only a handful of police departments and sheriff's offices in the United States - including in Queen Anne's County, Md., Miami-Dade County, Fla., and Mesa County, Colo. - fly drones. They so do as part of pilot programs that mostly limit the use of the drones to training exercises over unpopulated areas.

 

Among state and local agencies, the Texas Department of Public Safety has been the most active user of drones for high-risk operations. Since the search outside Austin, Nabors said, the agency has run six operations with drones, all near the southern border, where officers conducted surveillance of drug and human traffickers.

 

Some police officials, as well as the manufacturers of unmanned aerial systems, have been clamoring for the FAA to allow their rapid deployment by law enforcement. They tout the technology as a tactical game-changer in scenarios such as hostage situations and high-speed chases.

 

Overseas, the drones have drawn interest as well. A consortium of police departments in Britain is developing plans to use them to monitor the roads, watch public events such as protests, and conduct covert urban surveillance, according to the Guardian newspaper. Senior British police officials would like the machines to be in the air in time for the 2012 Olympics in London.

 

"Not since the Taser has a technology promised so much for law enforcement," said Ben Miller of the Mesa County Sheriff's Office, which has used its drone, called a Draganflyer, to search for missing persons ater receiving emergency authorization from the FAA.

 

Cost has become a big selling point. A drone system, which includes a ground operating computer, can cost less than $50,000. A new police helicopter can cost up to $1 million. As a consequence, fewer than 300 of the approximately 19,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States have an aviation capability.

 

"The cost issue is significant," said Martin Jackson, president of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association. "Once they open the airspace up [to drones], I think there will be quite a bit of demand."

The FAA is reluctant to simply open up airspace, even to small drones. The agency said it is addressing two critical questions: How will unmanned aircraft "handle communication, command and control"? And how will they "sense and avoid" other aircraft, a basic safety element in manned aviation?

 

Military studies suggest that drones have a much higher accident rate than manned aircraft. That is, in part, because the military is using drones in a battlefield environment. But even outside war zones, drones have slipped out of their handlers' control.

 

In the summer, a Navy drone, experiencing what the military called a software problem, wandered into restricted Washington airspace. Last month, a small Mexican army drone crashed into a residential yard in El Paso.

 

There are also regulatory issues with civilian agencies using military frequencies to operate drones, a problem that surfaced in recent months and has grounded the Texas DPS drones, which have not been flown since August.

 

"What level of trust do we give this technology? We just don't yet have the data," said John Allen, director of Flight Standards Service in the FAA's Office of Aviation Safety. "We are moving cautiously to keep the National Airspace System safe for all civil operations. It's the FAA's responsibility to make sure no one is harmed by [an unmanned aircraft system] in the air or on the ground."

 

Officials in Texas said they supported the FAA's concern about safety.

"We have 23 aircraft and 50 pilots, so I'm of the opinion that FAA should proceed cautiously," Nabors said.

 

Legal touchstones

 

Much of the legal framework to fly drones has been established by cases that have examined the use of manned aircraft and various technologies to conduct surveillance of both public spaces and private homes.

 

In a 1986 Supreme Court case, justices were asked whether a police department violated constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure after it flew a small plane above the back yard of a man suspected of growing marijuana. The court ruled that "the Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye."

 

In a 2001 case, however, also involving a search for marijuana, the court was more skeptical of police tactics. It ruled that an Oregon police department conducted an illegal search when it used a thermal imaging device to detect heat coming from the home of an man suspected of growing marijuana indoors.

 

"The question we confront today is what limits there are upon this power of technology to shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 2001 case.

 

Still, Joseph J. Vacek, a professor in the Aviation Department at the University of North Dakota who has studied the potential use of drones in law enforcement, said the main objections to the use of domestic drones will probably have little to do with the Constitution. "Where I see the challenge is the social norm," Vacek said. "Most people are not okay with constant watching. That hover-and-stare capability used to its maximum potential will probably ruffle a lot of civic feathers."

At least one community has already balked at the prospect of unmanned aircraft.

 

The Houston Police Department considered participating in a pilot program to study the use of drones, including for evacuations, search and rescue, and tactical operations. In the end, it withdrew. A spokesman for Houston police said the department would not comment on why the program, to have been run in cooperation with the FAA, was aborted in 2007, but traffic tickets might have had something to do with it.

 

When KPRC-TV in Houston, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., discovered a secret drone air show for dozens of officers at a remote location 70 miles from Houston, police officials were forced to call a hasty news conference to explain their interest in the technology. A senior officer in Houston then mentioned to reporters that drones might ultimately be used for recording traffic violations.

 

Federal officials said support for the program crashed.

 

 

Now this IS interesting..........

 

 

 

British Criminals Are Using Drones To Steal Marijuana

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/british-using-drones-to-steal-marijuana-2014-4#ixzz38QK53dYf

The latest killer application for drone use seems to be in marijuana reconnaissance, reports ITPortal.

Criminal gangs in the UK's rural Shropshire County are reportedly using flying robots equipped with infrared cameras to spot hidden marijuana growing operations from the sky, then blackmailing the growers or downright stealing their crop from the house.

 

In the past, law enforcement has similarly used abnormal infrared heat signatures as a means of prosecuting marijuana cultivators, but these means are being used to a different end by criminal elements in search of drugs or money.

 

One of these fly-by-night marijuana thieves spoke to a local paper about what he does: "[Pot farms] are fair game. It is not like I'm using my drone to see if people have nice televisions. I am just after drugs to steal and sell. If you break the law then you enter me and my drone's world."

 

Drones are only getting more affordable and their use more widespread. The Pocket Drone, a Kickstarter project that successfully raised nearly a million dollars to bring small, affordable drones to the market, offers customers almost everything they need to get flying for $446.

 

Tom Watson, Shropshire area MP and chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drones, said, "It is no surprise enterprising criminals would want to get the upper hand in the criminal underworld by using drones.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/british-using-drones-to-steal-marijuana-2014-4#ixzz38QJnrDNV

 

 

 

MUST READ if your trying to evade detection-----------

 

How To Hide Marijuana Grow Ops From

Airborne Infrared Flir Detection Devices #1

 

http://onlinepot.org/misc/hidefromflair.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember kidz.....'Knowledge IS power' ....stay awake.....stay i formed.....and stay safe

 

Power to the peaceful!

[slipstar059]

I'm so tempted to get a flir for my iphone. Just to see what everyone is talking about.

http://blog.ivytools.com/2014/01/08/hands-on-review-flir-one-iphone-infrared-camera/

[Dr. Bob]

If I looked out my window and saw an unmarked drone hovering there and looking in, I wonder if I would be in my legal rights to take it down?  I am sure discharging a shotgun would not be kosher, but there are other ways to hit them.

 

Just a question.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

If I looked out my window and saw an unmarked drone hovering there and looking in, I wonder if I would be in my legal rights to take it down?  I am sure discharging a shotgun would not be kosher, but there are other ways to hit them.

 

Just a question.

 

Dr. Bob

If you couldn't normally see in the window then you would have the right to sue the owner of the drone. Just listened to an attorney discussing this issue.

[Dr. Bob]

Did a little research, guess it is illegal.  They are treated like manned aircraft.

 

Dr. Bob

[purple pimpernel]

If I looked out my window and saw an unmarked drone hovering there and looking in, I wonder if I would be in my legal rights to take it down? I am sure discharging a shotgun would not be kosher, but there are other ways to hit them.

 

Just a question.

 

Dr. Bob

One of these would be fun to take out..........

 

--but @50,000 @pop i think you would get in trouble

 

Would be fun like shooting skeet-

 

 

http://www.avinc.com/uas/small_uas/wasp/

 

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2074830_2080103_2080128,00.html

 

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2074830_2080103_2080115,00.html

 

 

I dont think youd want to flower w these tho--

 

 

http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircraft/index.php

 

 

You could swat these till they swarmed u........

 

http://rt.com/news/us-drones-swarms-274/

 

Welcome to our survelliance state--

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/newly-released-drone-records-reveal-extensive-military-flights-us

 

 

 

http://fox17online.com/2014/06/24/grand-rapids-looking-to-expand-surveillance-downtown/

 

http://www.grbj.com/articles/80109-uav-regulation-debate-drones-on

 

http://offnow.org/2014/07/02/local-actions-part-national-surveillance-web/

 

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/07/local-spying-is-part-of-the-national-surveillance-web/

 

...no wonder kent co sucks so bad for personal freedoms......home of blackwater and the first place to test flouride in drinking water on civilians......any doubt why no one up there votes theses nwo folks out---

--an extreme social experiment from the beginning......pretty sick and at the average persons expense and tax dollars

 

Yea shoot one down bob.....i would love to see the you tube video

 

Thats why we love you so much......you are one of us....just 'wetter'

 

Peace doc-

Edited July 25, 2014 by purple pimpernel