In the latest, probably eeriest example of civilian life imitating war, reports indicate that police all over the country want to employ high tech drones to engage in domestic surveillance operations.
That’s right – thanks to 10 years of war and the military’s drive to get increasingly sophisticated equipment to hunt down former sheepherders and poppy farmers armed with old Soviet rifles and cell phones, law enforcement here will soon be able to regularly deploy unmanned aircraft into the sky to “hover and stare” on the domestic population, engaging enough sensors and cameras – and who knows what weapons – to finally obliterate whatever expectation of privacy Americans had left.
Before you hand me a tin foil hat, just for a second think about it, the standard putdown of any conspiracy-minded individual – the Fox Mulder if you will – is that he is a card-carrying member of some “black helicopter” crowd. Well, black helicopters are being replaced by Draganflyer x6 and T-Hawk drones, and in this case, the Mulder doesn’t have to theorize – both are being employed by the government in both Texas and Colorado and purchased by urban police departments right now.
According to an in-depth Sunday feature on domestic drones published in The Washington Post Jan. 23, their use is still “exceedingly rare,” mostly because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates airspace, still has strict rules requiring permission for agencies to use the drones in actual operations. Well here is the catch: according to the paper, the FAA already has plans to relax its rules over the next two years, allowing “police across the country to routinely fly light-weight, unarmed drones up to 400 feet above ground – high enough for them to be largely invisible eyes in the sky.”
Already, according to WaPo, there are 270 active FAA authorizations for the domestic use of drones: 35 percent of them are for the Defense Department, 11 percent for NASA and 5 percent for the Department of Homeland Security to monitor the northern and southern borders of the country. That leaves nearly half for law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, “as well as manufacturers and academic institutions.”
Not surprisingly, the United Kingdom – the big brother of Big Brother – is already using unmanned aircraft for all sorts of things. According to a recent piece in The Guardian, UK police were using microdrones for surveillance as early as 2007, monitoring the V Festival in Staffordshire. Apparently fire brigades also employ the little buggers over major blazes.
But police in the U.S. seem quite amenable to taking it to the next level. According to a Reuters report on Jan. 16, the Mayor of Ogden, Utah is looking to employ an unmanned dirigible surveillance system that is now being designed by the Utah Center for Aeronautical Innovation and Design at Weber State University, over the city. “We anticipate using it mainly at night,” Mayor Matthew Godfrey told Reuters. “The cameras have incredible night vision to see with tremendous clarity daytime and nighttime. It will be used as a patrol car. It will be used to go an check things out and keep things safe.”
Yeah, except patrol cars do not have night vision and forward looking infrared technology (FLIR) cameras and the ability to see into people’s backyards, moving quickly and quietly above the treetops and “fairly undetectable.”
Meanwhile, the Miami-Dade Police Department bought two T-Hawk drones two years ago. According to a recent report, the department has been testing and training with the tiny flying machine, and is close to applying to the FAA for airspace approval. Police Sgt. Andrew Cohen told Talking Points Memo this month that using the drone can help the department avoid putting officers in harms way (two of its officers were shot to death by a suspect just last week) by reducing the need for helicopters and helping to provide “real time information to commanders on the scene.”
“No other law enforcement agency in the country is using this,” said Cohen. “We’re forging new ground.”
You bet. It’s not difficult to see where this could logically go. Police have been using helicopters for years to chase down suspects and bust marijuana growers. As drones get more sophisticated in their surveillance capabilities for the military, so they will get more sophisticated for civilian law enforcement at home. And they will become more pervasive, one can count on it. To sweeten the deal, Honeywell, the maker of the T-Hawk leased its drone to Miami-Dade for $1, no doubt with the intention of helping to spread drone technology from department to precinct like wildfire.
“Once they open the airspace up [to drones], I think there will be quite a bit of demand,” Martin Jackson of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association told The Washington Post.
Right now, drones like the T-Hawk and the Draganflyer are on the low end of the spectrum. On the other hand, the “hunter-killer” Predator B (aka MQ-9 Reaper), responsible for hundreds of targeted killings in Pakistan and Afghanistan and now used by DHS for border patrol, can travel speeds up to 240 mph (compared to 45 mph for the T-Hawk) and can stay in the air for 30 hours (compared to 50 minutes for the T-Hawk), and carries with it an array of surveillance equipment (compared to the T-Hawk’s two cameras).
But the sky is indeed the limit, and the drones today will end up looking like something out of Toy Story 3 if the military has its way. Example: two years ago, the Air Force was supposedly working on a package of super-surveillance cameras for its drones called the “Gorgon Stare,” which would allow ground operators for the Reaper drones to see everything within a 2-mile radius via 12 different, simultaneously working camera angles.
At about the same time, reports Wired, super-secret DARPA was developing ARGUS (Autonomous Real-Time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance Imaging System), to fit into a drone helicopter developed for Special Forces overseas. According to contract holder BAE Systems:
“The program’s goal is to develop a compact system combining a multi-gigapixel, high-resolution sensor; wide-field optics; an ultra-high-bandwidth, real-time airborne processing system; and a ground station for interactive multi-target designation, tracking, and exploitation. The airborne processing system can simultaneously and continuously detect and track the presence and motion of thousands of small or large targets over an area covering tens of square miles.”
More recently in January, the Air Force announced the “Blue Devil” project, which would involve a dirigible many times bigger than the Goodyear blimp and a “supercomputer” that would carry “up to a dozen different sensors, all flying on the same airship and talking to each other constantly…The supercomputer will crunch the data, and automatically slew the sensors in the right direction” and getting information down to the ground in less than 15 seconds.
“It could change the nature of overhead surveillance,” retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula told Wired.
It sure could – and it will eventually wreak havoc on our rights at home.
Police have already pushed the limits of surveillance as far as they can go with present technology. They are putting GPS trackers on individuals’ cars without their knowledge, and driving through parking lots remotely scanning license plates for infractions. They can use heat-seeking infrared cameras (FLIR) in helicopters (and soon, drones) to spot people growing pot plans behind closed doors, on private property – as long as they have a warrant (the UK has much different standards, as seen here). And according to the Supreme Court in California v. Ciraolo (1986), police do not need a warrant just to hover (in helicopter, blimp or drone) around your house and bust you for what you might be doing in your own backyard.
As with any other kind of military creep, Americans will likely get comfortable with the idea that the drones will be deployed for “specific missions” like busting cagey marijuana growers and tracking down dangerous suspects. What they won’t know until its too late, is that departments across the country will want to deploy them as much as possible, because they can, and as WaPo points out, operating a drone costs half as much as a black helicopter. So don’t be surprised if they start to replace traffic cops. In fact, they’ll give “neighborhood patrol” quite a new name.
The 100-pound gorilla in the room, of course, is how long it will take until the drones start carrying weapons. Where will it begin? Perhaps on the border – there are plenty of people in this country who don’t believe for a second that our “unalienable rights” extend to aliens. Hewing faithfully to type, one poster on the right-wing Lucianne.com website responded to The Washington Post report last Sunday:
“Sinatra5: If we have all these ‘excess drones,’ maybe they should be redeployed to the Mexican boarder (sic) and stop the flow of illegals and/or unregistered democrats. A Hellfire missile is an excellent deterrent.”
At least we know that when The Reaper comes to call, there will be a few good citizens here to wave it on in for duty.
Read more by Kelley B. Vlahos
- Antiwar.com Sues FBI After Secret Surveillance – May 21st, 2013
- Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Film – May 13th, 2013
- Iraq’s Generation Hell – May 6th, 2013
- Jeremy Scahill’s ‘Dirty’ Work – April 29th, 2013
- People Vanishing from Iraq War History – April 22nd, 2013







skulzfontaine
January 31st, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Hi Ms. Kelley:
Note 1- Mayor Matthew Godfrey of Ogden, Utah, is an inordinate and insufferable little prick. Sorry for the course usage of term. However, it is true. Mayor Matt is also worlds of intellectually challenged. I know the guy so, there you go. (In Utah terms, Godfrey is a freaking retard)
Note 2- How will local governments "pay" for these nifty little gadgets? On account of and you know, local government is just about comprehensively bankrupt. It is a given and just about common knowledge that, America is bankrupt from the federal level right on down the line.
So locals may want these cutting edge crime fighters but, being able to "afford" the little dickens might be another matter.
I'm just saying…
epppie
January 31st, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Why are people still apologizing for being 'conspiracy theorist'. If you are not a 'conspiracy theorist' in these times, you are just addicted to your blinders. Simple as that.
MoT
January 31st, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Aerial drones, back scatter scanning devices at airports and mobile units to irradiate your nuts while on the road or staring at the boob toob at home, ear splitting sonic crowd control devices, microwave emitting trucks to send any freedom loving people scurrying because they're being "nuked", cameras on street corners, groping at airports and soon train stations, and yet people still believe these bastards mean us no harm.
Hacklheber
February 1st, 2011 at 1:18 am
I like the "Gorgon Stare" moniker.
In "The Atrocity Archives" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atrocity_Archives) UK-based horror/sci-fi author Charles Stross describes "Scorpion Stare", a system of surveillance cameras set up over the UK augmented secretly with special technology to switch them into "look-to-kill" mode using principles obtained from actual Gorgons (ok, this _is_ fiction).
Actually, the novel in question is on-net: http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.html
"This document describes progress to date in establishing a defensive network capable of repelling wide-scale incursions by reconfiguring the national closed-circuit television surveillance network as a software-controlled look-to-kill multiheaded basilisk. To prevent accidental premature deployment or deliberate exploitation, the SCORPION STARE software is not actually loaded into the camera firmware. Instead, reprogrammable FPGA chips are integrated into all cameras and can be loaded with SCORPION STARE by authorised MAGINOT BLUE STARS users whenever necessary."
mickperry
February 1st, 2011 at 2:03 am
Not only is it a certainty that aerial drones are going to become more pervasive, but we can be equally sure that over time their use will also become 'de-regulated'. They will inevitably be regarded as 'must haves' by private security companies, and any rules regarding UAV deployment that have been put into place to assuage public concern will gradually erode. “First they introduced surveillance drones, but I did not care because I was neither a criminal nor an illegal. Then they armed the drones, but I did not care because I was not a 'terrist'. Then they blew my f$$$kin' home up and blew away my family, but I did not care because I was dead too.”
These bastards really dont care. To them, in our thousands, in our millions, we are all Palestinians.
bogi666
February 1st, 2011 at 6:55 am
Drones are being tested in Kingston, Jamaica and they provided by the companies that make them or paid for by the USG.
Susan
February 1st, 2011 at 7:06 am
Check out the FAAs Fact Sheet here; http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cf…
I am wondering if BAE Systems or Honeywell penned this article for the FAA.
"Unmanned aircraft promise new ways to increase efficiency, save money, enhance safety and even save lives. Interest is growing in a broad range of uses such as aerial photography, surveying land and crops, monitoring forest fires and environmental conditions, and protecting borders and ports against intruders."
Phil Giraldi
February 1st, 2011 at 9:04 am
Kelley – Great article. What I really like about the deployment of these new law enforcement tools is the due process involved. What I mean is that there is none. Police will inevitably get these things and they will use them because they have them without any restraint and increasingly when it becomes clear that an eye and ear in the sky will permit more down time for officers at the local donut shop. Wasn't there a sci-fi movie with Bruce Willis or somebody like that in which there were hordes of hovering robo-cops consisting of a big camera eye and ears mounted on a floating bowling ball???
Liveload
February 1st, 2011 at 11:36 am
Those blimps are sinister looking. Saw em near Key West earlier this month.
Andrew
February 1st, 2011 at 11:39 am
Hey, I have nothing against these drones, provided that we (citizens) can also have them. Hey, I can even envision a new outdoor activity of aerial fights of 'our' drones vs. 'theirs' (end of tongue-in-cheek).
tra la la
February 1st, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Plans for hovercraft that use the Coanda effect are available on the internet and have been for some years now. If I see one hovering in my backyard, I'll simply shoot it. Also, because these machines are radio controlled, there always remains the possibility of jamming and co-opting of radio control and subsequent crashes that could cause serious injury or death.
John_Mohammad
February 1st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Let's see….. take one drone (probably during daytime, on takeoff or landing approach), add a hostile segment of the population, mix in an abundance of very accurately scoped high-powered hunting rifles, mix well and see how much just one drone shoot-down will cost your local police department. The ultimate skeet-shooting challenge!
I see a potential for cornering the market on civilian thermal- and IR- signature-blocking suits.
Duglarri
February 1st, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Hey Kelly- one evening last summer I was sitting on a beach in Canada a few miles from the border, watching a satellite cross the sky to the south- I pointed it out to the kids- and after crossing about half the sky, it stopped and went back the way it had come. Whoops. Satellites don't do that! For about twenty minutes it tracked back and forth across that patch of sky, reversing course every ten minutes, before carrying on and disappearing to the east. By the angle and the distance the border, whatever it was was at about 10 thousand feet. This is in a spot where lots of locals make their living moving marijuana over the border. So it's pretty clear what they would have been looking for. But it sure puts a new wrench in the old "starlight, star bright" rhyme.
Anyone know if they do run Predators with running lights on over the Northern border, halfway across British Columbia? Or was this a UFO?
Beth L'yles MS
February 2nd, 2011 at 9:32 pm
What were the flying hunter/killer machines in the original Terminator movie called? Come on scifi fans; I know you can tell me. In any case it was inevitable.
Kevin Schmidt
February 2nd, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Time to get into the portable radar business!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSTAR
foodoo
February 3rd, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Not only will the government use drones,
but it is just a matter of time before gangs will use IEDs.
Andrewp111
February 5th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Some of these things are probably cheaper than sending out real cops in patrol cars, especially if they can use the little buggers to rake in revenue. How about little drones carrying sensors to detect large amounts of cash from the ferromagnetic resonance signature? Cops like to sieze cash.
Andrewp111
February 5th, 2011 at 9:13 am
The will be able to operate the drones from their laptops right in the Dunkin Donut shop. That way they stay nice and warm, stuffing their faces with glazed orbs, and they aren't using gas in their cars. It is probably cheaper to fly tiny drones than to operate patrol cars, especially if gas goes much higher.
Andrewp111
February 5th, 2011 at 9:17 am
They will operate them mostly at night, unless the drone is designed to be invisible. Invisibility is possible, as any flying object that has the same brightness and color as the sky cannot be seen by the human eye on the ground.
Let the Domestic Drone Age Begin | The American Conservative
August 6th, 2012 at 8:13 am
[...] drone since domestic law enforcement began using the weapons of war-turned-spy machines in the last few years. Thanks to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier [...]