{"id":25,"date":"2013-02-18T10:49:46","date_gmt":"2013-02-18T15:49:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mysecuritysign.com/blog\/?p=25"},"modified":"2026-03-31T09:12:51","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T13:12:51","slug":"police-surveillance-drones-pose-threat-to-domestic-privacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mysecuritysign.com/blog\/police-surveillance-drones-pose-threat-to-domestic-privacy\/","title":{"rendered":"Police surveillance drones pose a threat to domestic privacy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"soldier<\/a>

A soldier launches the RQ-11B Raven unmanned aerial vehicle during Raven training. Image used under Creative Commons from The U.S. Army<\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\n

As the battle rages on about the U.S. government\u2019s use of drones in the war on terror, the inevitable diffusion of military technology into civilian life is well under way.<\/p>\n

In the international debate over the use of drones, a major sticking point has been the use of drones to kill American citizens<\/a> thought to be terrorists. On American soil, assassinating untried criminals with a shot fired invisibly from the sky would be an egregious, unthinkable breach of due process, but a surveillance drone hovering and staring at the citizenry with a high resolution camera \u2014 for now, that activity is in a legal grey area.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

State and local police stations have been adding surveillance drones<\/a> to their enforcement arsenal, arguing that they can be used to search for missing children or seniors, or survey emergency situations. The Customs and Border Patrol have drones hovering in the air all along our southern border, watching out for signs of people slipping under the fence.<\/p>\n

There are potential benefits to the domestic use of drones, but the rapid pace of technological advancement, coupled with the relatively cheap price tag means that technology is outpacing regulation. It doesn\u2019t take much imagination<\/a> to see that drones have capabilities well beyond tracking missing kids. There\u2019s already talk of outfitting police drones with more than a seeing eye \u2014 a domestic drone could easily be fitted with a taser or the ability to shoot a rubber bullet.<\/p>\n

For now, there are real concerns about privacy. Even a bottom-of-the-market toy drone<\/a> can snap a crystal clear photo of passing license plates. The many drones on the market, with names like Raven, Wasp, Puma, Hummingbird, T-Hawk, Cobra, Reaper, Dragonflier, and of course \u2014 Predator<\/a> \u2014 can do a shocking array of things. The hulking Predators are known for razing small villages<\/a>, but there are drones small enough to hold in your fingertips. There are drones that can peer into windows, drones that can follow a mission (also known as a person) as they go about their daily business, and drones that work in a swarm, indiscriminately recording the comings and goings of an entire city.<\/p>\n

\"attention<\/a>

The image of a mounted security camera paired with a warning of surveillance seems almost quaint in light of the domestic drone debate (via MySecuritySign.com<\/a>).<\/p><\/div>\n

As drones become more widespread, cities and states are realizing that surveillance drones aren\u2019t just creepy, they pose a significant threat to fourth amendment rights. Depending on state and local laws, private citizens with surveillance cameras on their property are either required or can choose to put up a sign<\/a> out of respect for other people\u2019s expectation of privacy. Police, however, must use a warrant<\/a> to search a citizen\u2019s private space. Drones \u2014 which aren\u2019t fixed to a wall \u2014 can move seamlessly from the street, where there is no expectation of privacy, to a window, where a person should expect to feel unwatched.<\/p>\n

States are starting to catch up with surveillance drones. Florida<\/a> may be the first in the nation to enact a law, descriptively named \u201cFreedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act,\u201d regulating the use of drones. Eleven other states, including Montana, Maine, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Texas, aren\u2019t far behind.<\/p>\n

\"police<\/a>

Performing surveillance with cameras and boots on the ground may one day become a thing of the past. Image used under Creative Commons from underclassrising.net<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

In Seattle, the mayor was forced to send a pair of surveillance drones back to their manufacturer and shut down the police\u2019s unmanned aerial vehicle program. The city\u2019s residents decided that they weren\u2019t waiting around for a law to prohibit police drones. They practiced their first amendment rights and demanded their privacy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

-Aurora A.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Related articles<\/h6>\n