Dom+T.+-+NHD+MEMO

Home

STUDENT NHD MEMOS

Essential Question:

Should drones be used for domestic law enforcements? Position statement:

Domestic drones should be used in domestic law enforcements but there should be more restrictions on them such as who uses them, when they are used and how they are used; also there should be a mandatory warrant in the action of one so that they aren't our go to device to help us catch criminals.

**MEMO ONE:** The government is now allowing domestic unmanned aerial surveillance, aka "drones" to be used in domestic ways such as the police using them to "spy" on people with the probable cause of illegal acts. "Domestic drones are potentially extremely powerful surveillance tools, and that power — like all government power — needs to be subject to checks and balances. We hope that Congress will carefully consider the privacy implications that this technology can lead to (Stanley)." The big argument in the act of these drones is braking peoples privacy's in a harmful matter. Although there are already huge restrictions on them already, "Require the FAA to allow “a government public safety agency to operate any drone weighing 4.4 pounds or less as long as certain conditions are met (within line of sight, during the day, below 400 feet in altitude, and only in safe categories of airspace) (Stanley)." Overall even though there are restrictions on these drones, they can be helpful but also harmful to many people in our society.

Should drones be used for domestic law enforcements?

Drones should not be used for domestic law enforcements because they are a violation of our privacy, knowing that law enforcements could be watching you at all times in your day without you knowing.

= MEMO TWO: = Date: 4/9/12 To: Mrs. Sidor From: Domenic Treboni  Subject: Violating the privacy of the citizens by using domestic unmanned aerial surveillance, aka "drones".

Domestic law enforcers have a job of keeping the streets of our communities clean of crime the best they can, they often use many different ways to configure information on criminals. For example wire tapping, surveillance cameras and witnesses, but these sources all can be challenged against because of some inaccuracy. Therefore for complete accuracy and for first person evidence, law enforcers want to use domestic unmanned aerial surveillance, aka "drones", for multiple reasons. "Drones carry surveillance equipment, including video cameras, infrared ones, heat sensors, and radar for sophisticated virtually constant spying. Newer versions carry super high resolution “gigapixel” cameras. They enable tracking above 10,000 feet. They can monitor up to 30 enemies simultaneously, and can see targets up to 13 miles away (Lendman)." Even though these new and improved technologies sound great for catching criminals there are some arguments that are against the use of these drones. Some of the other main reasons drones could be very useful are for the safety of officers, secret investigations and it would be it almost easier to prove in court against criminals. The huge argument that is against the use of drones is that it is violating the privacy of people whom are not committing crimes. All people are affected by these new technology because you can have that feeling that when you walk out of your home that someone could be watching your every move from the sky, which could affect a lot of people by always thinking something or someone is watching could lead them to mental breakdowns. Then again, a lot of people are for the use of these because they would help clean up our communities from criminals to make it a safer place for everybody, but then again it could be used in a wrong way by any officer that operates them. For example, an officer that has a bad idea could use these for "spying" on people in a sexual manner, or they could use them to find out personal information about people whom aren't committing crimes and many more other ways for these officers to use them in a wrong manner. "If a drone will intrude on reasonable privacy expectations, a warrant should be required (Bell)." The government is working to make sure that these drones can be used in a respectful manner and putting so many restrictions on them that if an officer is caught using them in wrong ways that they could face serious consequences. "Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a “surveillance society” in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the authorities (Bell)." The rules on these drones are not yet completely confirmed yet but as you can tell the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working very hard to make these safe and as useful as possible.

=** MEMO THREE: **= Date: 4/12/12 To: Mrs. Sidor From: Domenic Treboni

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Law enforcers such as police departments might be able to be equip with unmanned surveillance, aka "drones" to find information on the criminals in our communities. In the past police officers could use wire tapping, cameras, eye witnesses or confessions to find criminals but with technology growing at such a huge rate we can now use devices that we can fly around to catch footage of people doing illegal acts. The reason our police departments are now having to use these "hardcore" surveillance is because criminals these days know how to out smart all of the devices that the police have been using for a really long time. "Dr James Robertson, head of Forensic and Technical Services with the Australian Federal Police, said the programs were helping criminals become more "forensically aware" of crime and better informed about covering their tracks. (drgdrg)" People can just watch T.V shows and find out information on how police officers think and work so they can counter these acts and not get caught which has forced the police departments to considering using drones. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">As time progresses technology is getting stronger and people are getting smarter which is why the law enforcers are having to advance to technology that criminals don't know how to out smart yet. "As early as 1965, there were press reports in the United States suggesting police use of surveillance cameras in public places. (drgdrg)" This is how our history has always been, for example surveillance cameras still work in some situations but they are very easy to manipulate, for example people in the past have realized all you have to do is find where the cameras are located and find angels in the stores that don't get seen by these cameras. For wire tapping, "Wiretapping is any interception of a telephone transmission by accessing the telephone signal itself. Electronic eavesdropping is the use of an electronic transmitting or recording device to monitor conversations without the consent of the party. (drgdrg)" It can easily be avoided, just don't use the phone when talking about their illegal actions. As you can see there is a counter all just about all the ways police get information on criminals, but if you use these drones that can use devices that can hear and see all that happens, crimes would be very hard to commit and not be able to be countered.

= MEMO FOUR: = 4/19/12 To: Mrs. Sidor From: Domenic Treboni

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Domestic drones should have more restrictions on them such as who uses them, when they are used and how they are used. Also there should be a mandatory warrant in the action of one so that they aren't our go to device to help us catch criminals. This answers the question, "s hould drones be used for domestic law enforcements`" by saying that they use of drones could be very helpful but to ensure our rights to privacy we need to enforce these restrictions. "Police departments recently obtained approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to used unmanned aerial drones (fesfser)." The only way that these ideas could be put into place is if multiple requests were sent into the FAA in regards to our concerns. If these actions were put into place then the issue of our violation on privacy would be greatly reduced because if a law enforcer were to want to use a drone for specific info then they would have to get a warrant and then once they have the warrant it would restrict who and how they would take video and get information. "Miami police department have also won permission to test drones, but they may only fly them over everglades and no higher than 400 feet (sfsefs)." Some very strong benefits of this position is that we can still use these drones to our advantage in a safe manner and not violate the privacy of civilians in their everyday lives. These drones are very fast advancing technology for our society and these could possibly be the idea that criminals can't counter or out smart them, these could be a change in history where criminals can't find a loop hole to do illegal things and try to get away from the consequences.

= MEMO FIVE: = 4/19/12 To: Mrs. Sidor From: Domenic Treboni Subject: People are willing to "give up" their right to privacy for ensured better safety by drones.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Some may argue that to ensure better safety against crimes, that they would be willing to give up their right to privacy. "Why would any non-criminal care about their right to privacy if they aren't violating the law. We believe its a poor excuse for criminals to abort domestic drones. (drgdg)" This statement could be easily argued because it does seem suspicious that people wouldn't want more surveillance to prevent crimes unless they were the criminals themselves. People should not have to lose their privacy to ensure safety, we should have good enough police enforcements that we can be safe and have privacy at the same time. Losing your privacy could affect you in many ways, always having the feeling that someone could be watching your every action, or if a drone got in the hands of a wrong user that they could use them for wrong actions. Drones can be very helpful but to make sure that they aren't used for wrong actions we need to place more restrictions on them and also make sure that warrants are present in the act of using one.

= MEMO SIX: = 4/28/12 To: Mrs. Sidor From: Domenic Treboni

Another argument against my ideas of restricting these drones is that people think its a good idea to have drones instead of cops themselves. "At our technology rate, these drones could be our only security needed to stop criminals... (fsd)." These people believe that have a society were there is no need for cops, only the ones whom operate the drones would be better because it wouldn't risk injury and crime would be less frequent. But the reality of that is if there were no cops, drones wouldn't be fast enough to react and stop the criminals, these drones aren't robots of the future you see in movie. "Domestic drones at this point in technology are a information factor to help investigations... (sdf)" The drones can gather information but they cannot replace officers for many reasons such as, they can't arrest people, they can't set up road blocks, and overall they just aren't fast enough to react to fast paced crimes.

= MEMO SEVEN: = 4/30/12 To: Mrs. Sidor From: Domenic Treboni A key argument against my position of restricting and adding a warrant to domestic drones is that some people think that adding a warrant to use them in specific situations is not needed for it isn't part of the 4th amendment of search and seizure. The writers from the Seattle Tribune believe that if in a situation where we think we need to use a drone that taking the time to propose to get a warrant would be a waste (fghdf)." The argument against that statement is that if law enforcements want to search or get information about you on your property, they need a warrant due to privacy rights, the same idea is being use here if a drone is being used that means its getting information on that person or persons. Both of them are getting information on people but as citizens they have the right to privacy so if they want to violate our privacy they need to get a warrant. This may not be specifically be in the 4th amendment but it is the same concept. "... even though these new technologies have the potential to be very helpful, we don't need to use them for every situation... (gdg)." Also a warrant should be present so that its not the first go to device as police to help them keep our society safe from crimes because if we used them to frequently we will turn into a fully surveillanced society.

= MEMO EIGHT: = 4/30/12 To: Mrs. Sidor From: Domenic Treboni

Without a doubt in my mind, drones could be one of the better and more useful ideas for law enforcers, but to use them it takes discipline and restrictions. Domestic drones could help our society get safe of crime but to ensure that our privacy rights are violated we need to make sure that the use of them can't be corrupted if a drone gets into the wrong hands. No one should have to give up their right to privacy to ensure safety even if you are willing it shouldn't have to happen. Its understandable that people would like to give up their privacy to make sure drones can keep them safe but if it shouldn't have to get to the limit where the criminals can out smart our law enforcers. Also just so we aren't a totally surveillance society, a warrant should be present so that they can be helpful in situations, but they aren't our go to device to help us defeat criminals. If there were no restrictions on drones then we would be seeing them on the streets instead of cop cars, there would be people controlling devices to watch us instead of the the police officers themselves. " <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">We don’t want to wonder, every time we step out our front door, whether some eye in the sky is watching our every move (Stanley)."

Wilkerson, Lori. "The History of Video Surveillance – From VCRs to Eyes in the Sky."//The History of Video Surveillance - From VCRs to Eyes in the Sky//. 09 Oct. 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://thehistoryof.net>.

"Wiretapping and Eavesdropping on Telephone Calls." //Wiretapping and Eavesdropping on Telephone Calls//. 02 Apr. 2012. Web. 23 Apr. 2012. <http://www.privacyrights.org>.

Bashan, Yoni. "TV Cop Shows like CSI Help Real Criminals: Aussie Expert."//DailyTelegraph//. 07 Dec. 2009. Web. 16 May 2012. <http://www.dailytelegraph.com>.

Bell, Josh. "Domestic Drones: Hear About Who’s Watching You from Above."//American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)//. 21 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. <http://www.aclu.org>.

Lendman, Stephen. "Eye In The Sky Spying On Americans." //Losing Freedom//. 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. <http://losingfreedom.org>.

Stanley, Jay. "Congress Trying to Fast-Track Domestic Drone Use, Sideline Privacy."//American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)//. 06 Feb. 2012. Web. 05 Apr. 2012. <http://www.aclu.org>. A web article from American Civil Liberties Union, author Jay Stanley, from the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at ACLU talks about the affects of domestic drones in the United States. ACLU is a union that does articles on the civil liberties in american, in this specific article they talk about the civil liberty of privacy being somewhat violated by drones. This article is being used as a source for my project because it breaks down into details of the restrictions and limitations of drones.

KCPQ/KMYQ-TV, Seattle. "ACLU calls on city of Seattle to establish safeguards for police use of aerial drones." McClatchy - Tribune Business News. 23 Apr. 2012 eLibrary. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.

Hennigan, WJ., Newspaper, McClatchy.. "Eye in the sky may soon be peering down at your home; As a variety of tasks are envisioned for robotic aircraft, the U.S. aviation agency looks at rules to control their use." Vancouver Sun. 10 Dec. 2011: B3. eLibrary. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.

Press, The Associated. "Pressure builds for civilian drone fights at home." Gainesville Sun. 26 Feb. 2012: eLibrary. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.

Brain, Bureau, Tribune Washington. "Spy drone used to aid arrest in U.S. ; Use by local police was not reported publicly, stretches federal law. "Chicago Tribune. 12 Dec. 2011: 13. eLibrary. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.