As if police drones didn't get enough bad PR

[Airmapper]

How close is that Mavic pilot ? Standing around the corner? Unless they are ignoring the rules...
Police cars have PA systems. Some of us spent a lot of time in front of city councils reassuring citizens drones would never be used to watch them. This crisis will pass and those communities with drones overhead barking orders will remember.

I am on this line of thought. This is a high tech solution to a dirt simple problem. Cops want new toys and I'm all for that as I know how fun it is when work gets new stuff to play with you want to use it. But folks are seriously nervous over drones, lets not freak anyone out more than necessary.

I have friends in LE and consider myself on the side of LE on most things. I totally get how the good guys I spend time with and know are genuinely good people with no sinister intent can think of it as in as simple of terms as it seems. Oh hey, we can send the drone up to get the message out and nobody has to get close, good deal, and we get a drone to play with, win win.

But I also know the tech and I know sending out a Mavic with a speaker on it is nowhere near as sinister as the folks who have in their heads these drones are all seeing automated robo-cops that instantly catalog everyone's ID and then follow them home and look in the windows like poorly made movies would have them believe. But still, loudspeaker drones sound scary as hell, even I would get freaked out and I know better.

It's when the local PD runs around freaking folks out with a Mavic and then some weeks later I come along to take photos with the same thing, if the neighbors see it they are freaking the hell out, that's no good for anyone. It makes them nervous, makes me a target of public ire, and just makes things tense. I'm all for the passerby who thinks my drone is cool and wants to see it fly, I'd rather not meet the passerby who thinks I'm spying on the neighborhood or some paranoid criminal sees me and thinks I'm there for him.

 

[Dave Pitman]

thought this was appropriate to this topic.

Coronavirus: Robot dog enforces social distancing in Singapore park

The four-legged robot carries a camera and speaker to play social distancing messages in Singapore.

www.bbc.com

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

thought this was appropriate to this topic.

Coronavirus: Robot dog enforces social distancing in Singapore park

The four-legged robot carries a camera and speaker to play social distancing messages in Singapore.

www.bbc.com

It may work in Singapore. USA? Kids would kick 'em over and steal them and sell the parts.

 

[Dave Pitman]

It may work in Singapore. USA? Kids would kick 'em over and steal them and sell the parts.

I can't remember the name of the dystopian scifi movie, but in it, kids were netting the drones flying around for parts too!

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

I can't remember the name of the dystopian scifi movie, but in it, kids were netting the drones flying around for parts too!

Put this in South Phoenix and 10 minutes later all you got left are a couple of screws.

 

[R.Perry]

Since I know nothing about law enforcement I may be off base here. If the police can use a drone that will increase officer safety, and the safety of the public, I'm all for them. I live in a remote area, with limited law enforcement and the Sheriff department purchased an Inspire 2, and are using it at times.

I hope to that most police officers are intelligent responsible people and I must believe they are going to use drones as any other tool available to them. I know our local volunteer fire people are using them, because they have used my drone and me at times. About the only laws I break at times is the speed limit and not by much. So I must believe that people concerned about the police watching them are those that needed to be watched.

 

[Dave Pitman]

The problem is that a lot (majority) of joe public equate drones with illegal/spying activity. Those on these boards are not the ones that will be uncomfortable around drones. Perception often carries heavier weight than facts. If you don't like the fact, you just label it fake.

 

[R.Perry]

The problem is that a lot (majority) of joe public equate drones with illegal/spying activity. Those on these boards are not the ones that will be uncomfortable around drones. Perception often carries heavier weight than facts. If you don't like the fact, you just label it fake.

Good point!

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Good point!

The real issue is that "perception" of the taxpayers matters. They write the checks. For those of us who have fought the good fight for the last 5 years, getting our communities to accept the value and usefulness of UAS in public safety has been an uphill battle. In 2017 I stood in front of a very suspicious city council explaining what our new M600 could do. The very first question was if we planned to use the drone to spy on citizens. Both the police chief and I devoted considerable time explaining the nature of UAS missions and assured the council and the citizens in attendance we would never use them to spy or surveil law abiding citizens, and search warrants issued by the courts would govern any criminal activity.

A short four years later, PDs across the country are doing exactly what we promised we would not do; use drones to spy on our citizens. The law enforcement agency heads are the problem, by not thinking this through.

Soon the 'rona will be history, but hard feelings last a long time. This is a classic example of misusing a tool just because you have it. As a police chief, knowing the anti-drone feelings still out there, AND the current anti government climate created by this pandemic, I would not approve UAS for enforcing quarantines or social distance; and that's my take on harassing citizens with speaker equipped Mavics. My 2 cents.

 

[R.Perry]

Interesting perspective Luis, I guess I thought the cops that enforce the law would abide by it, how naive. Let me ask, why would a police department want to watch a law abiding citizen?
One of the problems we have in our community is meth labs hidden in these hills. It would be so easy to observe these people with a drone undetected, where a helicopter is heard long before it even gets close. I asked the sheriff why they don't do something about the labs, his reply was "There is one of me, and a lot of them." It's pretty bad when the cops are afraid to enforce the law.
However if the police wanted to overfly my home and watch me they would get very bored very quickly. I just don't understand what law abiding citizens are worried about, oh, and yes I do have a burn permit.

 

[Mavic Mac]

The real issue is that "perception" of the taxpayers matters. They write the checks. For those of us who have fought the good fight for the last 5 years, getting our communities to accept the value and usefulness of UAS in public safety has been an uphill battle. In 2017 I stood in front of a very suspicious city council explaining what our new M600 could do. The very first question was if we planned to use the drone to spy on citizens. Both the police chief and I devoted considerable time explaining the nature of UAS missions and assured the council and the citizens in attendance we would never use them to spy or surveil law abiding citizens, and search warrants issued by the courts would govern any criminal activity.

A short four years later, PDs across the country are doing exactly what we promised we would not do; use drones to spy on our citizens. The law enforcement agency heads are the problem, by not thinking this through.

Soon the 'rona will be history, but hard feelings last a long time. This is a classic example of misusing a tool just because you have it. As a police chief, knowing the anti-drone feelings still out there, AND the current anti government climate created by this pandemic, I would not approve UAS for enforcing quarantines or social distance; and that's my take on harassing citizens with speaker equipped Mavics. My 2 cents.

Interesting perspective Luis, I guess I thought the cops that enforce the law would abide by it, how naive. Let me ask, why would a police department want to watch a law abiding citizen?
One of the problems we have in our community is meth labs hidden in these hills. It would be so easy to observe these people with a drone undetected, where a helicopter is heard long before it even gets close. I asked the sheriff why they don't do something about the labs, his reply was "There is one of me, and a lot of them." It's pretty bad when the cops are afraid to enforce the law.
However if the police wanted to overfly my home and watch me they would get very bored very quickly. I just don't understand what law abiding citizens are worried about, oh, and yes I do have a burn permit.

I got the impression Luis was primarily referring to the use of drones to enforce the social distancing advisories/regulations that have been put in place, not statutory criminal law. In those instances of criminal activity , if approved by a prosecutor and judge, a court order warrant would be obtained to use it.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

"Interesting perspective Luis, I guess I thought the cops that enforce the law would abide by it, how naive. Let me ask, why would a police department want to watch a law abiding citizen?"

I agree, ask Elizabeth, NJ, Savannah, GA, Chula Vista, CA, Daytona Beach, FL, et al.

"One of the problems we have in our community is meth labs hidden in these hills. It would be so easy to observe these people with a drone undetected, "
I totally agree, but see there's this pesky little thing called the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights which requires search warrants signed by a judge after a probable cause affidavit is filed. I would have loved to be able to kick doors down and arrest the dope dealers based on suspicion alone, What fun I could have had during my career!. My posting was referring to the use of drones to surveil law abiding citizens. I think we are on the same side.

 

[R.Perry]

Ok, question, we have social distancing laws in effect. If a drone is used to say monitor what people are doing on the beaches, how is that a violation of any constitutional laws? If they aren't abiding by the law, and potentially endangering others it doesn't seem to me there should be any problem with the use of a drone, verses a police officer enforcing the law.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Ok, question, we have social distancing laws in effect. If a drone is used to say monitor what people are doing on the beaches, how is that a violation of any constitutional laws? If they aren't abiding by the law, and potentially endangering others it doesn't seem to me there should be any problem with the use of a drone, verses a police officer enforcing the law.

Sidebar- There are no social distancing laws. Laws are only enacted by Legislatures. Governors have been issuing executive orders. Not the same. Actually that issue is currently being challenged in several states. But I digress.

You are missing my point. The issue was not legality but public perception and drones.

 

[Dave Pitman]

You are missing my point. The issue was not legality but public perception and drones.

Yup, that's the issue. Our county sheriff is a friend of mine. He told me back in 2016 that he might hire my service on occation but that he had no interest in his department operating drones because of, wait for it, PUBLIC PERCEPTION.

Like I said earlier. We, on here, don't get why joe public has that perception because we don't. But they do. Someday that may change.

Sidebar: Public Perception of Drones is why "we" probably can't generate much opposition (political leverage) against the FAA's grand plan of NSA/PRISM (in contrast to simple broadcast RID) for the uas system. That's my $.02 anyway.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

"Like I said earlier. We, on here, don't get why joe public has that perception because we don't. But they do. Someday that may change. "

We agree!!!
I am not speaking as a UAS proponent, been there done that. I was merely pointing out that agencies using drones to spy on whether the citizenry maintains social distancing is not a plus in our quest to gain public acceptance.

"He told me back in 2016 that he might hire my service on occation but that he had no interest in his department operating drones because of, wait for it, PUBLIC PERCEPTION. " The sheriff's attitude is his, so is his duty to "sell" drones to his citizens.
As chief it was my job to gain public acceptance of unpopular programs and methods. It our duty to gain public support; they pay our salaries. It can be done and has been done.

It is up to the chiefs and sheriffs to get off their butts and go out and sell the program.

 

[Dave Pitman]

"Like I said earlier. We, on here, don't get why joe public has that perception because we don't. But they do. Someday that may change. "

We agree!!!

Actually, this was more in reply to R.Perry. Restating that our perceptions around uas are not the same as the average joe and so seeing a drone invokes different reactions. As we all know too well.

 

[R.Perry]

I do understand to some degree the public's perception, I've encountered it in the area where I live. Our local Sheriff I guess has taken the attitude that he doesn't care about public opinion when it comes to drones. My belief is if it is a tool that can make a police officers job safer, and used to enhance public safety then public opinion shouldn't be an issue.
The police have been using helicopters for years, the highway patrol uses fixed wing aircraft for monitoring traffic, I don't see a great deal of difference other than the way they may be used.
I'm also admit about protecting our civil liberties, such as the second amendment that certain politicians would love to get rid of.

 

[flytnow]

thanks for sharing

 

[rvrrat14]

Howdy. Been MIA for a bit. As a public safety 107, my biggest issue is getting leaders to share what we’re doing with drones to the public. More positive press to the public. We do all we can to ‘hide’ the use, except to tell everyone ‘We got a drone’.

I’ve had a video shared to FB and it was a roadside fire. Within an hour it had over a thousand views and a bunch of shares.