Although it is well into the legislative season Hartford's state Representative Kevin “Coach” Christie will according to the Times-Argus, offer up legislation regulating drone use in Vermont. Rep.Christie was asked about drone regulation by a constituent at town meeting and after doing some research responded with a bill.
“[…] it seems to me this is something we might want to get a handle on sooner rather than later.”
Details are few but the Hartford legislator’s bill reportedly will require that police obtain a search warrant before using unmanned drone aircraft to monitor citizens.
He says the legislation at its core is designed to start a conversation in Montpelier about a tool that could soon enter the inventories of state and local police departments.
And as with all conversations, the language used can be key. In February there were reports that the drone industry was coming under a regulatory threat from legislation on Capitol Hill and in almost twenty state legislatures. Supporters of the domestic drone industry are attempting to soft pedal the surrounding “sensationalism” attached to the term drone. You know, the unwarranted loss of privacy, targeted killings (read, 'executions') without benefit of inconvenient and costly trials, sensational things of that nature. So the industry is attempting to adjust the language accordingly.
Gretchen West, the executive vice president of Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) said she doesn’t use the word “drone” when talking about the domestic variety because it only feeds the idea that the military versions of the aircraft are coming to America.
No agency in Vermont yet has drones nor do any use drones belonging to other agencies, according to the T-A report. Vermont Commissioner of Public Safety Keith Flynn says he has never had a conversation on the subject with the DHS or other federal agencies. When asked about legislated oversight of law enforcement drone use Commissioner Flynn replied broadly,
“The bigger issue is how we as a state want to deal with new tools as they come about,” Flynn says. “And that’s part of a bigger conversation.”
Yup, there is a bigger issue, such as when do law enforcement agencies stop acting as if law abiding citizens are the enemy – any thoughts, Commissioner, on the issue? For now, I guess Commissioner Flynn is free to wait and see what he can see, with drones or without.
till you can buy one at the local hobby / gun / drone shop.
good times are coming.
from my cold, unpowered, robotic claws…
and, surely, if we have a bearcat, there must be a PO waiting to be signed for a predator, reaper, or etc., tapping into some of that federal money. especially since, you know, we are so close to those pesky canadians just up there.
The ongoing militarization of the police, turning them into warriors against the citizenry instead of community peace officers is a BIG problem. A young friend recently tried to join the police force in another state, after having successfully completed training school. He was told to join the military and apply again when he gets back. That was a very sobering though. He’s now enlisted and preparing to ship to Afghanistan as an MP.
What will his thoughts about the ordinary people in the street be when he returns? Will he be deprogrammed – taught to stop viewing everyone as a potential enemy, or are they counting on that programming to ensure he continues thinking of every civilian he encounters as a potential threat?
I find this trend toward a “citizen=enemy” mindset to be both very disturbing, and very dangerous to our democracy.
We saw how cautiously and respectfully those were rolled-out in local law enforcement and patient control!
Unfortunately, I fear it’s already game-over for drone avoidance. Even if we manage to curtail their advance into statewide law-enforcement use, I am sure they will soon be widely deployed by border patrol with little or no need for legal justification.
Remember that much of the state falls within that 100-miles-from-the-border, “anything-goes” zone for federal searches.
Technology has been around for a while-years and if DHS is on it, so are ALL “public safety” personnel. So… it is being readied for roll-out & our public safety commisioner in VT, Flynn, is the very last to know??? To that I say horsefeathers. And along with Overtimegate, calls into question the honesty of the dept. & more evidence that the cops cannot be trusted. A public records request may show otherwise-get rid of those e-mails Keith:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-ad…
Tests of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for use by public safety agencies will move ahead this year, based on a small number of more than 70 vehicles proposed in white papers submitted for market research, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said recently.
Last year, DHS set a deadline of Oct. 31, 2012, for receiving white papers in response to a request for information (RFI) pertaining to its Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety (RAPS) project, run by the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate. RAPS involves tests of small UAS systems to facilitate transfer of those platforms to S&T customers.
http://www.hstoday.us/briefing…
Just a couple of simple requests to file in my dossier:
If you and those two other guys decide in one of your weekly meetings that I am a threat to the security of the nation, could you;
1) have somebody double check the intelligence? I’ve never vacationed in the tribal areas of Pakistan, or Yemen, and I doubt that I am ever going to. I occasionally get text messages from people I don’t know – probably fat fingered the number, you know how it is.
2) Give me a jingle before somebody pushes the launch button. There’s probably a perfectly innocent explanation for whatever it is that spooked the CIA. If you still want to launch, just to be on the safe side (because what the hell, who will dare to bitch about it?), then at least I’ll have a minute to phone my loved ones and say goodbye.
Thanks.
Hope and Change,
Minor Heretic