Educating public that we aren't spying on them ...

[RNCotton]

As we move forward with our COA and implementation of drones (I really hate that word) into our fire department operations here in Memphis, we're starting to look at ways to educate the public.

We already have 911 calls from people wanting the police to come because "someone is flying a drone and taking my picture." ... or "someone is trespassing on my property with a drone." ... or "Someone is flying a drone in the neighborhood and I don't want them spying on me." Y'all know the drill. Not that they called the cops on us ... just calling in general because citizen is flying a drone and they are paranoid.

For those of you using drones in public safety, how have you educated your citizens that we're using them in operational response, and we're not spying on them. We're thinking about 30 second PSAs that can be aired on local networks and pushed to social media. We're also thinking of press releases to the media and inviting them to do stories on the program and let the media educate the public on our behalf.

Should we paint all our drones red so the public knows they are fire department drones, and not the neighbor kid? I mean, you'd think the big smoke column and 15 fire trucks would give them a clue that maybe the drone in the air is part of that scene ... but ... these are the same people who call the fire department all the time saying the street is on fire, every time the utility company does a smoke test of the sewers ... and the utility workers are standing right there, and they put flyers on every door in the neighborhood the day before.

Curious what other departments and organizations have done.

 

[Outta Control]

I've been does this since Dec 2016, during the height of the X'mas drone craze from the news station. I created a program entailed, Drones: An Introduction to a Modern Phenomenon. These free courses to the public were held at county library systems.

 

[BigAl07]

@RNCotton the quickest way to KILL a Public Safety sUAS program is to start it without the full knowledge of the public well before it goes LIVE! Several Depts across the country have started and then had to mothball sUAS programs because of public outcry. As soon as John Q. Public starts complaining that the "Dept" has a drone and is spying" signatures get signed and programs are grounded. Public Perception is the Public's Reality regardless of what your intentions are.

The #1 biggest priority (bigger than budget IMHO) is the Public Relations Campaign about the sUAS program. You want them to know it's in the works, what you will and will NOT be doing with them, and show 100% transparency in the program LONG before the first sUAS goes on a live mission. If they hear about it after the program is up and running it will appear like you're playing with smoke & mirrors and you have something to hide.

 

[MapMaker53]

This gives me the idea to possibly offer a lecture on drones at our local library including drone types, drone capabilities, FAA and local laws, and public privacy rights. And it might be even better to put such a PowerPoint lecture together and share it with everyone so other operators can present the same lecture to their public libraries. I know this sounds like I'm volunteering to put together such a talk together, but I'm not quite there yet. Just thinking about it.

 

[Outta Control]

This gives me the idea to possibly offer a lecture on drones at our local library including drone types, drone capabilities, FAA and local laws, and public privacy rights. And it might be even better to put such a PowerPoint lecture together and share it with everyone so other operators can present the same lecture to their public libraries. I know this sounds like I'm volunteering to put together such a talk together, but I'm not quite there yet. Just thinking about it.

Been there done that but it was so successful that I also got Paid for speaking.

 

[Outta Control]

To support BA's comment 6 years ago the San Jose Police Dept purchased a octocopter costing over $18K back then.

Its primary purpose was for the bomb squad and was to be flown by a licensed LEO pilot, most likely a copter pilot.

But once Joe Q' Public got wind that the agency had a drone, there was an outcry and a signed petition to ground the octocopter from ever taking flight.

It now sits in a room/closet, untouched, and making homes for spiders.

 

[AH-1G]

To support BA's comment 6 years ago the San Jose Police Dept purchased a octocopter costing over $18K back then.

Its primary purpose was for the bomb squad and was to be flown by a licensed LEO pilot, most likely a copter pilot.

But once Joe Q' Public got wind that the agency had a drone, there was an outcry and a signed petition to ground the octocopter from ever taking flight.

It now sits in a room/closet, untouched, and making homes for spiders.

Yea the problem with Joe Q is his IQ
I have gone out and demonstrated to our local police department, they love it but currently their hands are tied and budget.

 

[rvrrat14]

These are great points. As I move forward with our local PD/FD I’ll certainly discuss this.
Whenever I shoot ‘downtown’ I’ve had people come up watch me fly, then ask me after I land what I was doing. I’ve had some nice chats and they all ended postitive.

Thanks guys.

 

[AH-1G]

Oh by the way, when I do fly and someone is interested, I carry my FVP goggles for them to see what my camera sees. They love it!

 

[RNCotton]

Thank's y'all .... good info. It gives us some great talking points at our next meeting of the minds.

 

[FatherXmas]

Oh by the way, when I do fly and someone is interested, I carry my FVP goggles for them to see what my camera sees. They love it!

I do that too, most folks love the experience when they wear the goggles. And for the older folks, I have a pair of Focus Fixers for the strength I need for me plus several pairs of Walmart readers at various strengths for others.

 

[R.Perry]

I know little or about law, other than what the speed limit is suppose to be, and that no one obeys. Anyway, I have a couple of issues. If the police or fire departments have a tool that can make their jobs easier and consequently make us safer, then why listen to John Q public?
Privacy, now if you were flying into my home I might have an issue. But if someone wants to ease drop on me, I could care less. I would think the only person worried about LEO having drones is someone that has something to hide.
The air space over my property isn't mine, I don't own it, nor can I control it, so how can someone complain about that air space being used?
Last question, then why doesn't fire and police contract with licensed drone pilots?

I stopped crop dusting for two reasons, one had so many John Q complaints when dusting close to major road ways, the other I clipped a power line with my landing gear wheels and I figured I I had almost used up my nine live and better find some higher altitude work.

 

[PDX Drones]

"I would think the only person worried about LEO having drones is someone that has something to hide."

I've got news for you. We've all got something to hide sooner or later and if you want to give drones a bad name, this is how you do it.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution requires that law enforcement obtain a warrant signed by judge to search places where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." (like a fenced in back yard in a remote area where your wife might be sunbathing nude)

It would be a shame for law enforcement to get so excited about this incredibly useful technology that they forget about the warrant requirement. If we're worried about drones getting a bad name for "spying," then we should be wary of law enforcement using these in places that would be protected by the Fourth Amendment. Just because the sheriff has a drone with a high-power zoom and infrared that will allow him to see me and my wife swimming in our backyard pool, does't make it legal. Even if he suspects that I might be cooking some meth or hosting some bad hombres, the sheriff still needs to get a warrant supported by probable cause and signed by a judge if he wants to look in places where I have reasonable expectation of privacy.

It's not that I have anything to hide. It's just that I think that the Fourth Amendment and its privacy protections are very important. Whether or not, you "have something to hide".

 

[Dave Pitman]

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution requires that law enforcement obtain a warrant signed by judge to search places where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." (like a fenced in back yard in a remote area where your wife might be sunbathing nude)

Curious how it is legal for law enforcement to use copters as a regular course of business? I think your definition of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a little too conservative. Cessnas, Google satellites, etc., can all see into the most rural back yards. Enclose it with walls and a roof and now you're on to something.

 

[PDX Drones]

"Enclose it with walls and a roof and now you're on to something."

Enclose it with walls and a roof and a military-grade thermal imaging camera (like those being given as surplus to local law enforcement) can see through your walls and into your bedroom. You don't think a warrant would be required for that?

"I think your definition of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a little too conservative."

Let's not use my definition then. Let's see what an actual court did in a similar situation. Let's look at the Vargas case.

In United States v. Vargas, U.S. District Judge Edward F. Shea ruled that defendant Leonel Michel Vargas had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the activities occurring in and around the front yard of his rural home, and accordingly, that the warrantless, continuous and covert recording of this space violated the Fourth Amendment. In doing so, the court held that law enforcement may remotely and continuously view and record an individual’s front yard through the use of a hidden video camera located outside of the individual’s property only with a valid search warrant, which the officers in this case failed to procure in this case.
Here are the specifics: Local police installed a video camera that operated 24 hours-a-day on public utility pole 150 yards away from Vargas’s home. The camera was aimed at Vargas’s front yard and could rotate and zoom through remote control, thereby enabling the camera to focus on anything in the front yard, including the front door, items in an open parking structure, vehicles (and open trunks and doors), individuals, and surrounding areas. The video footage was saved to an external hard drive connected to a police computer. After about a month of observation, police used the camera to observe Vargas shooting a gun at beer bottles in what seemed to be target practice. Because police previously had determined that Vargas was an undocumented immigrant, they determined that they had probable cause to assert that he had violated federal law by being in possession of a firearm. The police used this information to obtain a search warrant to enter Vargas’s home, where they found four firearms and five grams of methamphetamine, which formed the basis for criminal charges. Vargas moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was all obtained through the initial unlawful search of his front yard by remote video camera.
In its response to Vargas’s contention, the government argued that police may lawfully record activities otherwise open to plain view. Specifically, the government argued that because Vargas’s backyard is not surrounded by a solid fence, and any activities around the residence could be seen plainly from the road where the camera was installed without invading the curtilage of the home, Vargas had no expectation of privacy and thus a warrant was not needed for this activity.
The court rejected this argument, explaining that the surveillance at issue here was not a “plain view” observation. Police had information about Vargas’s target practice only because of the view afforded by the video camera, which was covertly installed approximately 30 days before the target practice occurred. This view, according to the court, is so different in its intrusiveness that it does not qualify as a “plain view” observation.

Although both Vargas and the government had raised the question of whether Vargas’s front yard qualified as curtilage (where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy) or an “open field” (where one does not), the court stated that the case did not turn on that question. Rather, the court explained, the search was unreasonable because Vargas reasonably expected his private activities in his front yard would not be subject to six weeks of constant, covert surveillance—surveillance the court classified as a “severe governmental intrusion into Mr. Vargas’s privacy.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which submitted an amicus brief by invitation of the court, noted that the invasiveness of video surveillance has led courts to require that police do more than just obtain a search warrant: law enforcement must make additional showings to the court, similar to those necessary to obtain authorization to wiretap a phone call. Both the EFF and the Court noted that the issues in this case implicate not just video cameras but other new technologies such as drones. The court explained that “[e]lectronic surveillance by the government is increasing, and the need to balance this government tool with the Fourth Amendment is required.”


So no I don't think that my definition is conservative and I don't understand why you are so eager to give away your privacy rights that our contained in our Constitution. On what legal basis have you derived your opinion?

 

[Dave Pitman]

I have no eagerness to give up my rights, I assure you. And I can't comment on the judgement in the case you referenced and for now I don't intend to research it.

I think that law enforcement does need a warrant to use technology to see through walls.

So you're sticking to the notion that all the hellis being used by LLE are carrying specific warrants or just close their eyes when flying over private property?

 

[PDX Drones]

The heli is more like a police car driving by my house. If it sits around, I am going to notice it and if it does surveille without a warrant, that would be a violation.

As a practical matter, law enforcement cannot really afford to use helicopters for general surveillance except for big drug cases, chasing a fleeing suspect. Some departments don't even have them because they're too expensive.

But for a mere fraction of the cost of a helicopter, a law enforcement agency could easily afford, say, 50 drones at $1,000 / pop and introduce a mass surveillance program in a matter of days. The new Mavic with the quiet rotor blades. Or just a bunch of Mavic Airs hovering everywhere, over our houses. Just for a look see.

 

[PDX Drones]

I do not currently practice law. But I went to law school and I have handled Fourth Amendment cases and I believe that as a citizen of the United States, it is our obligation to protect the very little privacy that is given to us in our Constitution.

Law enforcement is not at all concerned with our privacy rights. They did not go to law school. They do not care about your reasonable expectation of privacy and they will try to get away with as much as they can until they are reigned in by our judicial system.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Many of the municipality based regs relating to drone use popping up are actually aimed at restricting LLE and not the general public. There is lots of utility using suas for LLE while staying away from surveillance of private property. Anyway, this thread wasn't even about LLE use, but fire and emergency response.

 

[PDX Drones]

I completely agree that there are a lot of amazing ways for LE, emergency responders, and fire fighters to use drones and that they are becoming essential tools for many applications.

But the thread title says,

"Educating People We Are Not Spying on Them"

And someone wrote:

"I would think the only person worried about LEO having drones is someone that has something to hide."

And I felt that statement needed to be addressed.

You're right. It was another forum where I saw somebody bragging about how they showed off their drone to local law enforcement and described how they demonstrated the surveillance capabilities on a random person at a random private residence.