5 ms·

Helicopters already exist, and so do consumer drones - so why is this an issue?

inigyou 2mo ago
Scale. The possibility of surveillance was far less worrying when three police officers had to tail you, because they'd only expend that effort when they were pretty sure you'd done a crime.
- maerF0x0 2mo ago
  So we'd rather a high speed chase, crashes, danger to cyclists and pedestrians? I'd rather a drone follows the car until it stops and the police arrive to retrieve it and give a hand slap to the offender. I know this is lagging, and American culture will take decades to accept it, but the better our police are the lighter the sentences can be. Part of why a big hard sentence was seen as a deterrent was sort of the EROI ... If the chances of catching are small, you need a big deterrent. If the chances of catching are near 100% you only need a smaller deterrent (and apply it close to the behavior to maximize the brain training of "Do bad, bad things happen")
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Constraints can be good when they constrain both sides. E2EE chat protocols are good even though they effectively prohibit large groups, because they also prohibit intermediaries from reading your chats.
  - jplusequalt 2mo ago
    >the better our police are the lighter the sentences can be. >If the chances of catching are near 100% you only need a smaller deterrent I would rather live in a world with marginally higher petty crime rates with zero surveillance, than a world that has no petty crime but where there are Flock cameras on every corner and drones patrolling overhead at all times. Peter Thiel and his ilk are creating Big Brother.
    - robocat 2mo ago
      > marginally higher petty crime rates And what is a petty crime these days? Within the last year in Woolston Lyttelton and Brighton: I've been assualted unprovoked, I've had the outer unit of my split heatpump stolen (for Al, $$$ to fix), I've had outdoor plumbing damaged (for Cu, $$ to fix), I've had the rim stolen[1] off the back of my parked car, last week my friend had tools stolen that they can't afford to replace. I'm not sure what the answer is, but the above petty crimes are unacceptable to me or my friends. Nothing has been reported because that just costs time and doesn't resolve the problems. In small groups of people society is surveillance (yes, often detrimentally). I've lived in small towns and the surveillance is extreme. Society has got worse at encouraging/enforcing good society. I loath surveillance capitalism, but systemically I'm unsure what the answer is. I finally gave in and installed a Eufy brand camera (my security friend used that brand and installed it, although I can't recommend the UI). I don't think that it will even help. Ironically the security friend was broken into recently and had their security camera stolen. None of the above was motivated by hunger or good reasons: it was real scumbags for the situations I know the perp, and likely drug users for the metal thefts (or perhaps kids - two brass taps are not worth it). [1] https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360962317/its-bit-epidemic-mystery-wave-spare-wheel-thefts-hits-christchurch https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360962317/its-bit-epidemic-m...
      - jplusequalt 2mo ago
        >Society has got worse at encouraging/enforcing good society. How you could you possibly quantify this? It's so vague to mean anything, and worse, this sort of rhetoric is the moral licensing that gets poorly thought out policies passed through congress. >I loath surveillance capitalism, but systemically I'm unsure what the answer is. The answer should never be to make privacy impossible, because the government will take advantage of that.
        robocat 2mo ago
        I have more than a handful of decades personal experience which intelligently applied has value even if just a single sample of a voter. +/-fortunately voters do matter. I can't vote for much in the US given that I'm in New Zealand.
  - nozzlegear 2mo ago
    > So we'd rather a high speed chase, crashes, danger to cyclists and pedestrians? Yes, this is preferable to me when compared to a society where police can surveil everyone, everywhere for no crime at all. I don't want to sit on my roof listening to music and wonder how many police drones are watching me, trying to figure out if I'm a "prowler." I don't want to be followed by a police drone while I'm on my way to the basketball court to shoot hoops with my friend, simply because the police thought one of us looked like a "suspicious individual." > I know this is lagging, and American culture will take decades to accept it, but the better our police are the lighter the sentences can be. Part of why a big hard sentence was seen as a deterrent was sort of the EROI ... If the chances of catching are small, you need a big deterrent. If the chances of catching are near 100% you only need a smaller deterrent (and apply it close to the behavior to maximize the brain training of "Do bad, bad things happen") I think you're really underestimating the public's desire to punish criminals.
    - stvltvs 2mo ago
      People will shoot themselves in the foot if it means criminals get harsher punishments, sometimes literally.
    - maerF0x0 2mo ago
      > I think you're really underestimating the public's desire to punish criminals. Yes, i understand what you're saying hence why i mentioned culture. American justice (and cultural cues that inform the policies) seems to be more about revenge than rehabilitation.
      - nozzlegear 2mo ago
        Agreed on American justice, our culture and thereby system really prefer to punish anyone who gets caught. But just to stick up for the US a little bit (although I'm not fond of our policies): it's not just America that prefers revenge over rehab. From what I understand, Central America and South America also prefer it – the "mano dura" (iron fist) policies that many countries have are harsh too.
  - stavros 2mo ago
    I agree with you 100% if the number of average drone surveillance incidents per year stays the same as the average number of high speed chases per year that took place before drones.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      It won't, obviously.
  - JohnFen 2mo ago
    I would rather live on my feet in a dangerous world than live on my knees in a safe one.
- bobthebob 2mo ago
  I mean, helicopters are a limited and expensive resource. And here it looks like they use it on criminals on the run - not something they use to practically monitor each person like some surveillance system, or court ordered wiretap At least, that’s what I’ve gathered
  - stvltvs 2mo ago
    And helicopters tracking you are hard to miss.
- maxlybbert 2mo ago
  This is a very common position. But I’ve never understood the argument that police should have to do some amount of busywork for things to be fair. Warrants aren’t required so the police are sportsmanlike. Warrants are required because interacting with the police can be inconvenient or hellish, depending on the interaction.
  - bratbag 2mo ago
    It's because ignoring rights happens faster than they can be protected. Move fast enough with sufficent scale and you can eliminate peoples ability to protect their own rights before they even realise they are under threat. Sometimes friction in government is necessary for individual liberty.
ceejayoz 2mo ago
Helicopters are expensive and thus rare. Consumer drones can't summon a SWAT team.
- bobthebob 2mo ago
  Still don’t know how this affects me. The use here seems to be for criminals on the run
  - alistairSH 2mo ago
    So, we're back to the "if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about" argument for overbearing policing?
  - jasonlotito 2mo ago
    Again, the article says otherwise. So do the police.
  - ceejayoz 2mo ago
    Per the article, that doesn't appear to be the use case. > The innocuous appearance of many of the videos raises questions about whether the surveillance was necessary. In one “auto boost/strip”-related call, the drone follows two young men in their car, at least one of whom is described in police records as having been identified as a “suspicious person in a vehicle.” Then the two men emerge onto a basketball court and start playing, and the drone departs. > SFPD’s drone policy says operators must keep cameras trained on areas necessary to a mission and minimize the inadvertent collection of data about uninvolved people or places. It also instructs operators to take reasonable precautions, including turning cameras away, to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But the exposed Skydio feeds reviewed by WIRED showed full missions from takeoff to landing, capturing not only detentions and searches, but also streets, apartment buildings, rooftops, cars, courtyards, and bystanders who did not appear to be the subject of any police operation.
aqme28 2mo ago
I believe in a "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. A drone could hover outside my window watching me, but I don't think that would make people feel comfortable.
- bobthebob 2mo ago
  In a wiretap scenario, yes that would be uncomforting and worrisome. But these drones are used to chase active criminals. Unless you committed a crime and ran back to your apartment, I think you’d be fine
  - jasonlotito 2mo ago
    FTA: They are not used to chase active criminals.
jasonlotito 2mo ago
To answer your question succinctly: The government is doing them, and that could be breaking the law. If you are still unconvinced, ask yourself why you think the government breaking the law is not an issue?

Scale. The possibility of surveillance was far less worrying when three police officers had to tail you, because they'd only expend that effort when they were pretty sure you'd done a crime.

maerF0x0 2mo ago
So we'd rather a high speed chase, crashes, danger to cyclists and pedestrians? I'd rather a drone follows the car until it stops and the police arrive to retrieve it and give a hand slap to the offender. I know this is lagging, and American culture will take decades to accept it, but the better our police are the lighter the sentences can be. Part of why a big hard sentence was seen as a deterrent was sort of the EROI ... If the chances of catching are small, you need a big deterrent. If the chances of catching are near 100% you only need a smaller deterrent (and apply it close to the behavior to maximize the brain training of "Do bad, bad things happen")
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Constraints can be good when they constrain both sides. E2EE chat protocols are good even though they effectively prohibit large groups, because they also prohibit intermediaries from reading your chats.
- jplusequalt 2mo ago
  >the better our police are the lighter the sentences can be. >If the chances of catching are near 100% you only need a smaller deterrent I would rather live in a world with marginally higher petty crime rates with zero surveillance, than a world that has no petty crime but where there are Flock cameras on every corner and drones patrolling overhead at all times. Peter Thiel and his ilk are creating Big Brother.
  - robocat 2mo ago
    > marginally higher petty crime rates And what is a petty crime these days? Within the last year in Woolston Lyttelton and Brighton: I've been assualted unprovoked, I've had the outer unit of my split heatpump stolen (for Al, $$$ to fix), I've had outdoor plumbing damaged (for Cu, $$ to fix), I've had the rim stolen[1] off the back of my parked car, last week my friend had tools stolen that they can't afford to replace. I'm not sure what the answer is, but the above petty crimes are unacceptable to me or my friends. Nothing has been reported because that just costs time and doesn't resolve the problems. In small groups of people society is surveillance (yes, often detrimentally). I've lived in small towns and the surveillance is extreme. Society has got worse at encouraging/enforcing good society. I loath surveillance capitalism, but systemically I'm unsure what the answer is. I finally gave in and installed a Eufy brand camera (my security friend used that brand and installed it, although I can't recommend the UI). I don't think that it will even help. Ironically the security friend was broken into recently and had their security camera stolen. None of the above was motivated by hunger or good reasons: it was real scumbags for the situations I know the perp, and likely drug users for the metal thefts (or perhaps kids - two brass taps are not worth it). [1] https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360962317/its-bit-epidemic-mystery-wave-spare-wheel-thefts-hits-christchurch https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360962317/its-bit-epidemic-m...
    - jplusequalt 2mo ago
      >Society has got worse at encouraging/enforcing good society. How you could you possibly quantify this? It's so vague to mean anything, and worse, this sort of rhetoric is the moral licensing that gets poorly thought out policies passed through congress. >I loath surveillance capitalism, but systemically I'm unsure what the answer is. The answer should never be to make privacy impossible, because the government will take advantage of that.
      - robocat 2mo ago
        I have more than a handful of decades personal experience which intelligently applied has value even if just a single sample of a voter. +/-fortunately voters do matter. I can't vote for much in the US given that I'm in New Zealand.
- nozzlegear 2mo ago
  > So we'd rather a high speed chase, crashes, danger to cyclists and pedestrians? Yes, this is preferable to me when compared to a society where police can surveil everyone, everywhere for no crime at all. I don't want to sit on my roof listening to music and wonder how many police drones are watching me, trying to figure out if I'm a "prowler." I don't want to be followed by a police drone while I'm on my way to the basketball court to shoot hoops with my friend, simply because the police thought one of us looked like a "suspicious individual." > I know this is lagging, and American culture will take decades to accept it, but the better our police are the lighter the sentences can be. Part of why a big hard sentence was seen as a deterrent was sort of the EROI ... If the chances of catching are small, you need a big deterrent. If the chances of catching are near 100% you only need a smaller deterrent (and apply it close to the behavior to maximize the brain training of "Do bad, bad things happen") I think you're really underestimating the public's desire to punish criminals.
  - stvltvs 2mo ago
    People will shoot themselves in the foot if it means criminals get harsher punishments, sometimes literally.
  - maerF0x0 2mo ago
    > I think you're really underestimating the public's desire to punish criminals. Yes, i understand what you're saying hence why i mentioned culture. American justice (and cultural cues that inform the policies) seems to be more about revenge than rehabilitation.
    - nozzlegear 2mo ago
      Agreed on American justice, our culture and thereby system really prefer to punish anyone who gets caught. But just to stick up for the US a little bit (although I'm not fond of our policies): it's not just America that prefers revenge over rehab. From what I understand, Central America and South America also prefer it – the "mano dura" (iron fist) policies that many countries have are harsh too.
- stavros 2mo ago
  I agree with you 100% if the number of average drone surveillance incidents per year stays the same as the average number of high speed chases per year that took place before drones.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    It won't, obviously.
- JohnFen 2mo ago
  I would rather live on my feet in a dangerous world than live on my knees in a safe one.
bobthebob 2mo ago
I mean, helicopters are a limited and expensive resource. And here it looks like they use it on criminals on the run - not something they use to practically monitor each person like some surveillance system, or court ordered wiretap At least, that’s what I’ve gathered
- stvltvs 2mo ago
  And helicopters tracking you are hard to miss.
maxlybbert 2mo ago
This is a very common position. But I’ve never understood the argument that police should have to do some amount of busywork for things to be fair. Warrants aren’t required so the police are sportsmanlike. Warrants are required because interacting with the police can be inconvenient or hellish, depending on the interaction.
- bratbag 2mo ago
  It's because ignoring rights happens faster than they can be protected. Move fast enough with sufficent scale and you can eliminate peoples ability to protect their own rights before they even realise they are under threat. Sometimes friction in government is necessary for individual liberty.

ceejayoz 2mo ago

Helicopters are expensive and thus rare. Consumer drones can't summon a SWAT team.

bobthebob 2mo ago
Still don’t know how this affects me. The use here seems to be for criminals on the run
- alistairSH 2mo ago
  So, we're back to the "if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about" argument for overbearing policing?
- jasonlotito 2mo ago
  Again, the article says otherwise. So do the police.
- ceejayoz 2mo ago
  Per the article, that doesn't appear to be the use case. > The innocuous appearance of many of the videos raises questions about whether the surveillance was necessary. In one “auto boost/strip”-related call, the drone follows two young men in their car, at least one of whom is described in police records as having been identified as a “suspicious person in a vehicle.” Then the two men emerge onto a basketball court and start playing, and the drone departs. > SFPD’s drone policy says operators must keep cameras trained on areas necessary to a mission and minimize the inadvertent collection of data about uninvolved people or places. It also instructs operators to take reasonable precautions, including turning cameras away, to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But the exposed Skydio feeds reviewed by WIRED showed full missions from takeoff to landing, capturing not only detentions and searches, but also streets, apartment buildings, rooftops, cars, courtyards, and bystanders who did not appear to be the subject of any police operation.

aqme28 2mo ago

I believe in a "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. A drone could hover outside my window watching me, but I don't think that would make people feel comfortable.

bobthebob 2mo ago
In a wiretap scenario, yes that would be uncomforting and worrisome. But these drones are used to chase active criminals. Unless you committed a crime and ran back to your apartment, I think you’d be fine
- jasonlotito 2mo ago
  FTA: They are not used to chase active criminals.

jasonlotito 2mo ago

To answer your question succinctly: The government is doing them, and that could be breaking the law. If you are still unconvinced, ask yourself why you think the government breaking the law is not an issue?