More Drones Set To Use US Air Space 223
Dupple writes with a quote from the BBC about more testing of Predator drones in U.S. air space: "Tests have been carried out to see whether military drones can mix safely in the air with passenger planes. The tests involved a Predator B drone fitted with radio location systems found on domestic aircraft that help them spot and avoid other planes. The tests will help to pave the way for greater use of drones in America's domestic airspace."
Plain View Doctrine (Score:4, Informative)
"Radio location system" (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly enough, you can listen in on those with a 20$ tv tuner (software defined radio):
http://www.irrational.net/2012/08/06/tracking-planes-for-20-or-less/ [irrational.net]
So I guess the good news is at least that we'll be able to tell when and where the drones are flying... if this is abused enough, once could also imagine taking them done with DIY drones.
Re:Who do I have to salute? (Score:4, Informative)
The lawyers will make sure this has no more appearance of domestic military action than the AR-15 in the trunk of your local squad car.
The persistent surveillance concerns are as much a concern with camera towers and balloons as powered vehicles. Most people don't seem to mind the Wal-Mart Panopticon despite its much greater persistence than a lithium polymer powered flying machine.
Abuse potential:
-Weaponized drones getting hacked or abused by corrupt/human cops(jealous husband).
-Fishing expeditions under vague/broad mission profiles such as "missing child search" leading to search warrants.
-Low-cost enabling more aggressive swarm behavior ala Half-Life 2.
-encrypted/obscurificated video surveillance without a warrant(any application which requires covert video should be based on execution of a warrant). Transparency to consumer wireless video standards greatly reduces abuse potential in a similar way to police scanners.
Bottom line, the general public takes no issue with drones used for first responder & public safety applications. They take issue with surveillance, investigation, and man-hunts.
The first 2 are resolved by making drone video/picture evidence inadmissible in court. Man-hunts are greatly solved by technological limitations(ATM), and prohibiting the use of weapons.
Bottom line, so long as the Supreme Court's don't make any dumb decisions involving the fourth amendment, most fruit from the poison tree will be useless in court. This means we primarily need to resist attempts to make progress down the slippery slope of search without a warrant, and paramilitary police tactics.
Drones were predicted by Orson Wells because they are the inevitable march of technological progress. Drones offer the potential for less violent resolution to conflict which we should all hope would reduce the need for heavy handed tactics. Many cases of police brutality result from an officer's fear for their personal safety. The ability to determine the nature of a threat without infringing on civil liberties will prevent them from assuming the worst case scenerio and over-reacting because of what might-have been.
Re:Who do I have to salute? (Score:5, Informative)
Posse comitatus does not prohibit the use of the military against civilians. It only states that congress must authorize it, meaning the local sheriff, mayor, or governor can't call in federal troops. Only congress and the president can do that. So it's still wide open.