Seattle mayor scuttles police plans to use drones
Draganflyer X6 drone / AP
SEATTLE Seattle's mayor on Thursday ordered the police department to abandon its plan to use drones after residents and privacy advocates protested.
Mayor Mike McGinn said the department will not use two small drones it obtained through a federal grant. The unmanned aerial vehicles will be returned to the vendor, he said.
"Today I spoke with Seattle Police Chief John Diaz, and we agreed that it was time to end the unmanned aerial vehicle program, so that SPD can focus its resources on public safety and the community building work that is the department's priority," the mayor said in a brief statement.
The decision comes as the debate over drones heats up across the country. Lawmakers in at least 11 states are looking at plans to restrict the use of drones over their skies amid concerns the vehicles could be exploited to spy on Americans.
The Seattle Police Department previously said it would use drones to provide an overhead view of large crime scenes, serious accidents, disasters, and search and rescue operations. It had conducted demonstrations of the drones to show the public their capabilities.
The program drew strong criticism from residents Wednesday at a meeting of the City Council, which was considering an ordinance giving police the authority to use drones.
The proposed measure would have allowed the use of drones for data collection but barred police from using them over "open-air assembly of people" or for general surveillance. The drones would have carried no weapons, but the proposal would have allowed police to use face-recognition software in them.
The police department had purchased two Draganflyer X6 vehicles, which have a width of 36 inches, length of 33.5 inches and stand just under a foot. The drones are capable of flying indoors and outdoors and carry a camera, according to the company website.
The department had not yet begun using the drones but had received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration.
One of the program's key adversaries was the Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued the drones were obtained without any public input or discussion.
"We applaud the mayor's action," spokesman Doug Honig said Thursday. "Drones would have given the police unprecedented abilities to engage in surveillance and intrude on the privacy of people in Seattle ... and there was a never a strong case made that Seattle needed them for public safety."
Moving forward, the ACLU would like to see the Legislature adopt "very tight restrictions" on law-enforcement drones statewide, Honig said.
Opposition to the use of drones in the U.S. has come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, including civil liberties advocates and those worried over government intrusion.
On Monday, the Charlottesville City Council, in Virginia, passed a resolution imposing a two-year moratorium on the use of drones within city limits. The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group behind the city's effort, said Charlottesville is the first city in the country to limit the use of drones by police.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security drones do enter Washington airspace occasionally, patrolling the Canadian border east of the Cascade mountains. The two 10,000-pound Predator-B unmanned aircraft are based in North Dakota.
Meanwhile, CIA Director-designate John Brennan strongly defended anti-terror attacks by unmanned drones abroad Thursday under questioning at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Brennan said drone strikes are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- No fatalities in I-5 bridge collapse in NW Wash. 104 Comments
- Young victims of deadly Okla. tornado 10 Photos
- Clean-up efforts underway in Okla. 29 Photos
- Forecasters warn: Up to 6 major storms this season
- Kids, teachers from destroyed Okla. school reunite
- Boy Scouts approve plan to accept openly gay boys 408 Comments
- First funeral held for young Oklahoma tornado victim
- Kansas reporters run for tornado shelter during newscast
Google RFID technology. And every phone has GPS by law. Tried to activate an older one and was told it's illegal - no GPS chip.
I've also known women (and known of even more) who were married or engaged to cops who were abusive and used the so called blue wall of silence to keep the ladies silent and at home. A friend, who was a cop, told me about a county sheriff who was arrested for dui and spousal abuse in a small town in his county who made the whole thing (including 911 calls) disappear. It never was even reporteshot by local media. Some of these cases the cop would contact friends who were working to see if they had seen their wife.
There have been cop's wives who stayed in abusive relationships because they knew their abusive spouse could spin a tale to get their buddies to help them find their spouses. Too many of those women live in terror, some have died at the hands of their abusive cop spouse.
In concern for these women, in memory of those wives who died at the hands of an abusive spouse, in honor and memory of those who fought of rs to obtain or maintain our freedom, in memory of our founding fathers, and in concern for the constant attempts to erode our freedom and privacy I am totally against the use of drones in civilian (non-military applications).
Drones used by civilian law enforcement today do not have weapons. If they are allowed to use drones, at some point in the future they will do that. It may be 10 or 15 years in the future, or it may be next year. It will happen. And some of the sanctimonious wind bags who pat themselves on the back for doing nothing to hide may be the ones shot with a weapon on a drone for being guilty of driving a vehicle that looks like a bad guys, as happened to the people in the truck in California yesterday who were shot by cops on the ground in error.
Privacy you say? what privacy? when we know that the email box are pirated, telephone lines monitored, then why not drones.
"au revoir"
I know that is not what may have been promised, but if it can happen, it will happen.
Good old paranoid aclu! If it's of value to the US they take the opposite position. I look at it this way: if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
Case in point - traffic cameras. People hate them. They don't want to have these cameras "watching" them. Ok, but if you obey the traffic laws and drive with common sense what the heck is your issue? The only issue I see is people who run red lights or make turns on red when they shouldn't and they get caught. Same mentality as getting a parking ticket when they know they're parking where they shouldn't.
That investigation took 2 YEARS to complete and was only announced as the police chief was retiring.
It would be years (if ever) abuse surfaced of the these things flying over beaches and pools video taping girls in binikis.
Question before the Court: Did the police violate the Fourth Amendment by searching Ciraolo's backyard from an airplane without a warrant.
Date of Decision: May 19, 1986
Decision: The Supreme Court said the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Significance: With Ciraolo, the Supreme Court said people in enclosed yards cannot expect privacy from air traffic above.
I am not out committing crimes, I have nothing to worry about, although I do hate those stupid red light cameras that get you for rolling thru a red light at .1 mph.
-------------------------------------
so ... you are committing crimes?
what else are you doing that we should be monitoring?