Several cities globally have adopted Drone as First Responder (DFR) programs, including Chula Vista, CA, a pioneer since 2018; Carmel, IN, which recently launched a program; Denver, CO, planning drone deployments for 911 calls; and even in Mexico, where Ensenada’s drone initiative reduced crime by over 10%. The NYPD joining this trend is only a good thing, as these programs improve response times, situational awareness, and public safety.
How many people dying in a traffic crash want to see a drone respond to their 911 call? How many crimes have video cameras in gas stations ever stopped?
No, police just want more surveillance. This is not about protecting or serving. Sorry, but all this does is delay a real response. .
1 reply
Arthur, I sense your fears, but drones don’t delay real responses, they make them better. They don’t replace responders; they help them. For example, in a traffic crash, drones can arrive quickly, assess the scene, and give paramedics and officers the information they need to act faster and smarter.
I get it, cameras alone don’t always stop crimes, drones enhance awareness and provide evidence that helps investigations. Programs like Chula Vista’s, a city I know well, have shown that drones improve response times and public safety, not just surveillance.
Drones are also cheaper than helicopters or fixed wing aircraft, making them a practical and more economical option for smaller departments. As technology gets better and more affordable, we’ll likely see more police using them, provided they follow clear rules to protect privacy.
And where do they buy these drones from?
Not one word on the source, (or cost per drone) in the official announcement.
If they are sourced from China, is the NYPD sure all the software back gates have been shut?
Huawei was shut down in the US mobile market on suspicion of back gates, without any actually been found.
In France the interest is in urban and para-urban (range not long enough for rural areas) delivery of defibrillators to heart attack victims by drone. (Drones almost all made in China, Parrot, the French pioneer was driven out by state funded Chinese firms.)
Sounds simple but the practicalities of always having a drone able to respond in each sector, even in areas with strong 5G mobile networks for control, are great.
Expect the cops too will take some time to become effective.
Montgomery Co, MD has been using their drone program for over a year and have posted several videos of their success stories on YouTube ( Montgomery County Department of Police ).
Neighboring Washington, DC started their drone program a little earlier this year (I think it was this year), and they actually send out “Alerts” to their public notification emails when they deploy the drones. While rules can be broken and anything can be abused, DC posts information on, and about when they use their drones right on their website: Drones and Unmanned Aircraft Systems. DC also reports that their drones are US of A sourced, so China snooping is not a factor.
As for actually stopping crimes, I fully agree that drones, like any other cameras do not stop crimes; however, we may never know how many crimes have not occurred because of the drone’s significant assistance in apprehending a repeat offender who may have otherwise escaped to commit another crime another day.
First off, they will be patrolling with video analytic technology. That is against my “reasonable expectation of privacy”. It’s illegal to record and store an individuals movements without a court order to do so.
Secondly, it’s demonstrable that crime has not gone down even as video camera use has exploded. Their premise is either laughably wrong OR a smoke screen to get “approval” for their city wide monitoring and recording effort. Once the get approval, they will be used beyond the stated purpose. Guaranteed.
2 replies
It’s illegal to record and store an individuals movements without a court order to do so.
Nonsense. If that were the case, citizens with cell phones couldn’t record police actions involving individual officers - and the right to do so has long been settled.
Or did you mean that it is legal for we the people, but illegal for the cops, to record and store such imagery?
1 reply
The POLICE cannot act w/o a warrant to record and track your movements. Citizens can though if you get too nosy then it’s a charge for stalking.
1 reply
Yes, and such tracing devises by police are also being successfully taken down as unconstitutional intrusions. Government recording and logging of citizens w/o a warrant is illegal. This is the USA and it’s none of the governments business unless they have a warrant to do it. Sorry, but we used to have civics and government classes in school.
The POLICE cannot act w/o a warrant to record and track your movements.
Then how do they get away with those insidious body cameras?
Yes, police body cameras and patrol car dash cams are legal in all U.S. states. These devices are used for:
And Yes, police can legally use drones for various tasks, including surveillance and search and rescue operations. However, regulations vary by state, particularly concerning the requirement for a warrant before conducting surveillance.
States Requiring Warrants for Police Drone Surveillance:
These states mandate that law enforcement obtain a warrant before using drones for surveillance, except in certain emergency situations.
Federal Regulations:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversees drone operations nationwide. Law enforcement agencies must adhere to FAA guidelines, which include:
Privacy and Civil Liberties:
The use of drones by police has raised concerns regarding privacy and civil liberties. To address these issues, many agencies have implemented policies that outline acceptable uses, data retention protocols, and measures to protect individual privacy. Public transparency and community engagement are also emphasized to maintain trust.
Source: UCLA Law Review
And yes, I did not know all this. Good topic!
1 reply
Maybe his Trumpship will tweet a decree that they be built here in the USA!
Body cams and police dashcams are used at the scene of an active investigation. That’s a big difference from government surveilling everyone from a drone and then using that collected data to start doing trend analysis and construct background analysis on people.
Unless there is a crime, it’s none of the business of police to record where I go or who I visit or where I go to spend my money. This should be self evident.
1 reply
It seems the discussion has really drifted from Drone as First Responder (DFR) to random surveillance as someone would have us to think. There is no law concerning videoing in public, the fear/argument concerning drones is that they have an ability to view private areas, such as private property completely concealed by a privacy fence. These are the types of cases where drone laws are introduced and debated ( https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/komando/2023/02/09/how-legally-avoid-drone-surveillance-around-your-private-property/11205343002/ ). Back to the topic of DFR, my bet is that the jurisdictional rules of fresh and hot pursuit (yes, they are different) equally apply to the jurisdiction concerning the drone. With that said, try and stop an officer (to ask for a warrant), with a body worm camera for the purpose of being on topic, who is in fresh pursuit of a person for certain felonious assaults against another and see how that ends up.
Maybe kick it up a notch and have Robocop arrive via Evtol.
Is all this out of hand, Bubba? It’s starting to feel that way. With drones (40% used for surveillance), cameras on every corner, and phones tracking us like a clingy lap dog, it’s no wonder people feel like privacy is a distant memory.
The problem is that organizational tools designed to protect us often go too far, collecting more data than necessary and quietly invading personal lives. Without clear rules, it’s like we’re all auditioning for a reality show we never agreed to join. While a bit of paranoia is understandable, the solution isn’t fear—it’s action. Demand oversight, transparency, and boundaries to ensure these technologies are used responsibly.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean theye’re not out to get you. It seems the software sometimes has it’s own ideas about what was put forward with little regard for context or meaning. Check your texts carefully.
1 reply
These drones are not much different than the helicopters the NYPD has used for years. They have 8 helicopters with really advanced FLIR cameras that can read license plates.
I’ve flown the Hudson River corridor past NYC 40+ times, and there’s always at least one NYPD helicopter orbiting over the City.
Here’s a YouTube video they put out showing some of their capabilities:
Given the active control required to fly and aim these cameras (drone or chopper), they’re generally used for spotting the bad guys. Not always, but generally.
However, the real worry is the proliferation of ALPR (automatic license-plate readers). They’ve pretty much replaced toll booths, and are common inside police cars. But now some cities are sticking them on lamp posts and street signs throughout their borders. In those cases it’s not a matter of going through a toll booth or being tailed by a cop, both areas where you expect to be surveilled. With more widespread deployment of these passive ALPRs it could mean anywhere you drive you’ll be tracked.
One programmer recently set up a web-site to keep track of these cameras’ locations and which way they’re aimed. It can be found at “deflock.me”.
PS - and for those who argue “if you’re doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?”, my reply is "do not confuse privacy with secrecy. It’s no secret what goes on in a bathroom, but people still close the door for privacy. The only people with truly nothing to hide are nudists living in glass houses.
Body cams and police dashcams are used at the scene of an active investigation.
So - stopping a car with a burned out light is an “active investigation”? The laws generally require that the camera be on [at least] during all interactions with the public - and that that data (including a glance at your license plate) be stored for a certain time.
So - is it OK to surveil some people, but not others?
1 reply
That is an ACTIVE police stop so cameras would be on.
Police following and recording people 24/7 without their knowledge requires a warrant.
Simple.
While again not the DFR topic, this is not a true statement. A warrant requires probable cause, full stop. Surveillance, even intentional following while videoing does not require probable cause, a warrant, or even a subpoena as long as the surveillance is in public spaces. There is no such thing as a video warrant.
Paranoia is not something a newbie acquires right away. The reference has to do with wordprocessing programs. After 55 years of swinging propellers I feel it is well earned. Yes, do check your six often.
It was claimed at least a decade ago that LAPD could read a licence plate from 10,000 feet.
There are stabilized camera balls for helicopters.
And IR sensors for commercial aircraft, such as from FLIR in Oregon.
I can see this being a huge advantage in areas that are difficult to get to–where traffic is gridlocked, rooftops, wooded/marshy areas, construction sites, etc.
