FBI uses drones in U.S

[Ombudsman]

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged the law enforcement agency uses drone aircraft in the United States for surveillance in certain difficult cases.

Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that drones are used by the FBI in a "very, very minimal way and very seldom."

He did not say how many unmanned surveillance vehicles (UAVs) the FBI has or how often they have been used.

But a law enforcement official told CNN the FBI has used them a little more than a dozen times but did not say when that started. The official said drones are useful in hostage and barricade situations because they operate more quietly and are less visible than traditional aircraft such as helicopters.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/1 ... ?hpt=hp_t2

I suspect people who have never heard of remote control aircraft will be upset about this.

[Dryer Vent]

Query: if my neighbor's kid puts a remote control camera on his remote control airplane that flies over my yard, is this considered a drone? OMG, I may be the victim of a drone attack. Hmmm.

[O Really]

FBI shoots 150 people in 20 years? Is that a good or bad number? The Jax Florida cops have already shot 10 just this year already, and average more than 25 a year, leading the state and on a per capita basis possibly the nation. Not that I believe all internal "investigations" of shootings, rarely having seen one that found the cop was just a hothead, but still...

[O Really]

I saw the headline about "FBI Admits Use of Drones in US" yesterday, but had not read the article. Given the "admit" term and the degree of whoopdedoo implied, I was pretty sure they had used the drone to kill off some collateral kids. But they're surveillance drones? OMG, next those scoundrels will be using heat sensors or binoculars.

[bannination]

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged the law enforcement agency uses drone aircraft in the United States for surveillance in certain difficult cases.

Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that drones are used by the FBI in a "very, very minimal way and very seldom."

He did not say how many unmanned surveillance vehicles (UAVs) the FBI has or how often they have been used.

But a law enforcement official told CNN the FBI has used them a little more than a dozen times but did not say when that started. The official said drones are useful in hostage and barricade situations because they operate more quietly and are less visible than traditional aircraft such as helicopters.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/1 ... ?hpt=hp_t2

I suspect people who have never heard of remote control aircraft will be upset about this.

What upsets me is that they can peek inside your house without a warrant. Technology FTW.

[Dryer Vent]

I saw the headline about "FBI Admits Use of Drones in US" yesterday, but had not read the article. Given the "admit" term and the degree of whoopdedoo implied, I was pretty sure they had used the drone to kill off some collateral kids. But they're surveillance drones? OMG, next those scoundrels will be using heat sensors or binoculars.

Yeah, but, SCOTUS said in Kyllo that heat sensors need warrants. There you go!! I think curtains might assist one in foiling the binocular users.

[O Really]

I saw the headline about "FBI Admits Use of Drones in US" yesterday, but had not read the article. Given the "admit" term and the degree of whoopdedoo implied, I was pretty sure they had used the drone to kill off some collateral kids. But they're surveillance drones? OMG, next those scoundrels will be using heat sensors or binoculars.

Yeah, but, SCOTUS said in Kyllo that heat sensors need warrants. There you go!! I think curtains might assist one in foiling the binocular users.

Yeah, I forgot Kyllo - seems it got press at the time and then faded. Interesting opinions. Majority opinion was written by Scalia, joined by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer, while Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy and Stevens dissented.

[Dryer Vent]

No one has even mentioned the drug sniffing dogs. They are warrantless.

[O Really]

FBI shoots 150 people in 20 years? Is that a good or bad number? The Jax Florida cops have already shot 10 just this year already, and average more than 25 a year, leading the state and on a per capita basis possibly the nation. Not that I believe all internal "investigations" of shootings, rarely having seen one that found the cop was just a hothead, but still...

Your point about internal "investigations" - including in this case the "justifiable" determination despite forking over $1.3 million "to the victim of a 2002 FBI shooting, an innocent 20-year-old the FBI mistook for a bank robber" - is more the reason I posted it than the 150 tally.

If this is how their internal "controls" <ahem> work when people are shot what's the logical conclusion about their other less visible activities?

"Justified" vs. "liable" isn't the same thing. At issue regarding "justified" would be whether the agent took reasonable action and in accordance with protocol in the situation he had. At issue regarding "liable" would be that he shot the wrong guy. Even if your investigation found the agent to be an incompetent dolt, the shooting could still be considered "justified" if the incompetent dolt had a reasonable belief at the time that the guy was a robber. (oversimplified example: if a guy with a mask on comes running out of a bank, a cop might be more likely to believe he's a robber than a guy late for a Halloween party.)

In the brief time I was willing to spend on it, I didn't find a summary of the alleged $1.3 million settlement or what the facts and circumstances were. So I don't know if, IMNVHO, I would have counted it "justified." But it could have been and they still could be liable for having shot the wrong guy.

Personally, I generally rave about "unjustified" in instances where there were other available alternatives, and where a reasonably trained cop should have taken one of those alternatives.

But discussing this certainly should make one think if they really want to be the "civilian" armed and waving his "defensive" gun in a crowd when a criminal starts shooting.

[Dryer Vent]

Just for clarification, what rights have I given up.

[O Really]

No one has even mentioned the drug sniffing dogs. They are warrantless.

I've got a drug-sniffing dog. Wrap his medicine up in a piece of meat (or peanut butter, or whatever) and put it in his mouth. He'll eat every bit of the wrap, leaving a clean, damp, but unbitten pill on the floor.

[O Really]

To the point, the right to not be "searched" by a police dog and to refuse the subsequent physical searches of your vehicle, home and body cavities if the dog detects someone else's drug scent on your thrift store clothes or the cop lies about the dog reacting.

You know I'm opposed to the so-called "drug war," but you also do realize that "it's not mine" is the number one response to a finding of drugs in your pocket. It's understandable that drug cops might look askance at the thrift store clothes excuse - even if it could theoretically be true. What percentage of cops would you say have ever planted evidence? (not a trick question - I have no idea).

[Dryer Vent]

To the point, the right to not be "searched" by a police dog and to refuse the subsequent physical searches of your vehicle, home and body cavities if the dog detects someone else's drug scent on your thrift store clothes or the cop lies about the dog reacting. Then, there are the many other ways that the drug war has chipped away at our rights with the enthusiastic consent of the American people. You're smart, I doubt I have to list them.

Now, we have a new enemy - the terrorism that we've done so much to create. Obviously, the largest, most intrusive domestic surveillance system ever created has further chipped away at our privacy and freedom. I get that your fear of terrorism makes you think that the loss is worth it. Fine, smart and well-intentioned people disagree on the point, but you surely are aware it's occurred, aren't you?

You did NOT name one right that I have lost. A police dog does not "search" me. He sniffs. I cannot be arrested for sniffing. If that were the case, every dollar bill in my wallet contains cocaine...proven fact. The cops would have to FIND drugs. I totally doubt that thrift store clothes have drug smells. Have you ever smelled the stuff they spray everything with? It's obnoxious.

List what ways the "drug war" has chipped away my rights. You seem to throw around generalities, but no specifics.

[Stinger]

Query: if my neighbor's kid puts a remote control camera on his remote control airplane that flies over my yard, is this considered a drone? OMG, I may be the victim of a drone attack. Hmmm.

He doesn't have to. They're down at the hobby store for $249 with the camera already installed.



Watched a guy fly one of these at the local R/C club. Scary.

(Google search just showed a cheapie for $59.)

[JTA]

Query: if my neighbor's kid puts a remote control camera on his remote control airplane that flies over my yard, is this considered a drone? OMG, I may be the victim of a drone attack. Hmmm.

He doesn't have to. They're down at the hobby store for $249 with the camera already installed.



Watched a guy fly one of these at the local R/C club. Scary.

(Google search just showed a cheapie for $59.)

Now how am I ever going to get any sleep at night knowing anyone can now purchase their very own DRONE?

[Stinger]

Now how am I ever going to get any sleep at night knowing anyone can now purchase their very own DRONE?

Just close the blinds. That camera doesn't have x-ray vision.

But it can do this.

http://www.wimp.com/scenicgermany/

Holy shit! This guy's a *#&ing good pilot. (You can see him often in the video, especially when he catches the plane.)

[Mr.B]

"What upsets me is that they can peek inside your house without a warrant."

The tin foil hats will make a comeback.