Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


Drone.jpg
The Draganflyer X6 is an electric powered Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) which most people refer to as a drone. Seattle Police have two of them. The drones must follow FAA guidelines which include not flying over crowds. They must be monitored by at least one operator and one observer.(File photo)

Drone Zone: Proposed aerial surveillance rules for Seattle

February 5, 2013 @ 5:05 pm (Updated: 6:42 pm - 2/5/13 )

Put words like "surveillance" and "unmanned aerial systems" together, and people begin to worry about Big Brother watching their every move.

At the direction of Mayor Mike McGinn, the Seattle Police Department has been working on rules governing the use of drones. A city council committee will discuss, and likely vote, on the proposed policy Wednesday afternoon.

The SPD has two drones, so far, that were obtained with a grant from the Department of Homeland Security. While the technology will become more advanced, the drones Seattle has burn through batteries in about 10 minutes.

The city says the systems "are intended to help us protect public safety by gathering visual information in specific situations where sending in an officer would not be safe, or to take crime scene photography that a human being could not easily capture.

The use of aerial surveillance cameras will be "tightly controlled, regulated and will not be used to conduct random surveillance," they say.

Here's how the Seattle Police Department proposes using the new technology:

HAZMAT response: In the event of a hazardous material incident, the UAS would provide first responders with important visual information without having to expose them unnecessarily to the hazard. A HazMat event includes incidents involving Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or Explosives.

Search and Rescue: Would provide search personnel with aerial views of large areas, much like an airplane or helicopter.

Barricaded persons: Would provide commanders and first responders additional information needed to develop tactical plans without unduly putting officers at risk.

Video/photographs for investigations: Would assist investigators with the ability to video/photograph large crime scenes. These images would be used to further investigations and for eventual court prosecution.

Significant traffic collision investigations: The "bird's eye view" of a crime scene is extremely important during an accident reconstruction investigation.

Disaster response (Flood, earthquake, etc.): The use of UAS during a natural disaster would be helpful to first responders as they begin to assist the community in recovery. Any other requests for use of the surveillance system would require a police warrant.

The police promise, "We will balance all operations with the need to accomplish the mission while maintaining public privacy and the freedom from intrusion."

Not so fast.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington says if society is not vigilant, new technology can outpace public policy.

"Police drones give government unprecedented abilities to engage in surveillance of people's activities," says the ACLU's Doug Honig. "Our elected officials need to adopt laws controlling law enforcement use of this new technology, or it will control us."

Charlottesville, Virginia this week became the first city in the U.S. to formally pass an anti-drone resolution.

On a 3-2 vote, the resolution, "calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court," and "pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."

The final wording stopped short of calling their city a "No drone zone."

A Councilmember there who voted in favor of the bill, Dede Smith, says drones are "pretty clearly a threat to our constitutional right to privacy."

Vice Mayor Kristin Szakos, who voted against the resolution, says she can imagine ways in which drones might be "used for positive things."

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (18)


  • Add A Comment

  • jaysonoo7 wrote...
    We should all go back and read...
    February 5, 2013 6:18 pm
    1984... We are well down a slippery slope the Department of Motherland Security already monitors every form of communication for key words. Once you have said the word "Bomb" you might as well consider your self monitored. Text messages, Facebook posts, hell even posts on MYNORTHWEST.com are watched by the NSA. Is this really the country we want to leave to our kids?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ToldYa wrote...
    spot on...
    February 5, 2013 7:04 pm
    and don't forget the nazi reichstag legislation that made the unlawful 'legal.'
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    'If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.'
    February 6, 2013 5:00 am
    Unless, of course, you are suspected of something... regardless. .. and you don't even have to know if you are suspected or not.

    J'accuse. .... but those who accuse are never known.

    And if our president can use drones, why not the SPD - or Kristin Szakos?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kato1967 wrote...
    True...
    February 6, 2013 11:08 am
    until they re-define what doing something wrong means. Don't always count on nice people being in power.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mike in Pioneer Square wrote...
    Not so Fast
    February 6, 2013 5:01 am
    "...pretty clearly a threat to our constitutional right to privacy..." Not if you're in public and breaking the law. The real problems here are that people are a.)deeply superstitious and b.)afraid that they will be seen breaking the law. This isn't "1984". That's complete nonsense.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • NoBamaCougdIt wrote...
    What's the big issue?
    February 6, 2013 6:21 am
    Seattle is already full of drones...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • shark75 wrote...
    Can't wait to shoot down my first drone
    February 6, 2013 6:46 am
    No search warrant, no fly-overs....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • JMGilday wrote...
    area above my property
    February 6, 2013 7:54 am
    is a No-Fly Zone. It WILL be shot down and confiscated
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Serious Constitutional Question obviously unimagined by the founders...
    February 6, 2013 8:01 am
    Who owns and controls the airspace *above* private property? Property has always been measured in two dimensions, width and length.

    We know that private property has always been considered to extend well into the earth below the surface. If I own 100 acres of pasture, and oil is discovered down below the surface of that pasture, I can put up a derrick, pump the resource, and sell the oil. Or, I can sell the "rights" to the oil under my private property to a third party and allow them to extract and sell the oil.

    Back in the 1700's, nobody ever considered getting higher off the ground than it was possible to jump. :-){OK, maybe the Montgolfier Brothers (spelling) had experimented with a hot air balloon or two}.

    I think the definition of private property should extend to the airspace above the property, if it does not currently do so. All the way to the far edge of the atmosphere.

    Airlines obviously have a prescriptive easement, as they have been using this airspace above private property for almost a century.

    I think it would be unconstitutional for law enforcement to assume a prescriptive easement for the use of aerial surveillance. Law enforcement cannot have an easement, absent probable cause or a warrant.

    In the highly unlikely event I ever wanted to sunbathe in the nude, within the fenced privacy of my own yard and out of the view of any neighbors, (for which they would be highly thankful), I wouldn't want to think there were a bunch of cops yukking it up around a video monitor, wolfing down donuts and laughing, "Hey look at this crazy old, pasty looking, somewhat flabby white guy sunbathing in his back yard!"

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Chuck, it's not a matter of 'should' . The full bundle of real property rights extends both to the center of the earth AND to infinity above.
    February 6, 2013 8:38 am
    In fact, one of the specific rights we were required to give up in exchange for free noise abatement from the Port of Seattle for aircraft noise a few years ago WAS those same overhead air rights.

    That said, I wouldn't be about to shoot down any drones I see overhead. I understand those things can be equipped to shoot back.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Newton wrote...
    This is an expense I can't stand.
    February 6, 2013 8:39 am
    Hey print your own money up but don't charge me for you debt. All you council members. I will not pay debt on projects that in the future are made to harm people. With putting a guided missle on it is next.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • R L M 456 wrote...
    The police promise, "We will balance all operations with the need to accomplish the mission while maintaining public privacy and the freedom from intrusion."
    February 6, 2013 8:50 am
    How do you know a cop is speaking a lie

    his lips are moving

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • spuddog wrote...
    Various law enforcement agencies...
    February 6, 2013 10:41 am
    have been using airplanes without warrants for years to gather evidence and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld their use saying that we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the air. What's the difference if they now use a drone instead of an airplane or helicopter?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }