Use of Drones by Seattle Police Strikes a Nerve

Jim A @ 11/6/2012 7:24 PM

We would not need drones in the air if there were fewer "drones" on the ground.

Bob @ VA @ 11/7/2012 5:13 AM

I believe that one underlying problem with UAVs is ubiquity. While helos and aircraft are expensive and require highly trained pilots, UAVs are relatively inexpensive and their operation of smaller ones requires relatively little training. UAVs can also be quite stealthy, not an adjective I'd apply to the average police helo. Thus, departments are able to purchase and deploy small UAVs in relatively large numbers. Law-abiding citizens have an expectation of privacy in their fenced back yards, and they don't expect to be monitored or imaged in whatever state of dress that they inhabit their private pool deck or hot tub. We've all seen or heard of scandalous "official" photos or videos making the rounds in a department, on Facebook, or on Youtube.

The latter centers on the other issue, and that is trust. A mere handful of abuse incidents erodes the public's trust.

I believe that departments must go out of their way to build trust with their communities and also provide for strict accountability for the use of UAVs. Perhaps putting a few citizens on a monitoring committee would help in this regard. Abuse of images and videos must be dealt with quickly and effectively.

UAV's can provide valuable tactical intelligence, saving lives in some situations. But they come with serious responsibilities as well.

John @ 11/7/2012 2:03 PM

Big brother monitors us electronically through the use of our social security numbers. You even have to give a s.s.n. for a pre paid credit card or a fishing/hunting license (at least in most states). Now little brother wants to monitor us using camera equipped drones. The drones should not be used in residential areas.