The Pentagon deployed drones 11 times throughout the 2018 fiscal year. That's the same number they deployed from 2011 to 2017 combined. The drones varied from civilian drones to military strike aircraft, and they were used for disaster relief, reconnaissance and everything in-between.
New data published by the Pentagon has revealed when drones were used, what they were used for and how long their missions lasted. Over half of the missions fell under the "Defense Support of Civil Authorities," which only became viable this year after the Secretary of Defense removed oversight requirements.
[...] In total, there were three year-long missions and eight short-term missions which lasted an average of three months each.
Hellfires helping homefires between disaster relief and reconnaissance?
Don't forget to register and license those homebrew hoverers, hmmm?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 28 2019, @03:41PM (5 children)
That was also whored out on Slashdot earlier by the same poster as here.
This story is a non-issue, because the use of drones in question are simple replacements of piloted flights with no increase in flight length or frequency. This just allowed them to avoid risking the manpower in the air in high risk fire overflys, and a few other situations that would have been legal either way.
Getting into domestic surveillance flights by contractors and spy satellite overflies/real time feeds is far more worthy of scrutiny at the moment, although drone situations should be kept an eye on for when they DO finally start using them for privacy violating overflies of american's housing.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 28 2019, @06:16PM (2 children)
Of course, a Republican is in office so drones have been restored to their status as just a fancy RC plane and not the civilization ending threat that Obama failed to stop on day 1.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 28 2019, @06:51PM
Cognitive dissonance at work. I was horrified by Obama's usage (voted for him) and I'm still horrified now. This is apparently beyond the comprehension of many users here.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 28 2019, @10:00PM
Do please at least glance at the article summary: 11 domestic uses in 12 months, including DJI Phantom deployments? To me that's a fantastically small number of nationwide deployments for a 12 month timespan.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday January 28 2019, @07:14PM
Assuming that's the complete list and there were no off the books missions I think that all sounds fairly reasonable, tbh, but definitely something that's worth keeping an eye on to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 28 2019, @08:46PM
Doubtful, I haven't even navigated to slashdot.com in over a year, but I believe I still hold the JoeMerchant username there...
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Tokolosh on Monday January 28 2019, @04:29PM (6 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act [wikipedia.org]
As another poster has pointed out, this is not specific to drones. But the government likes to use new technology as an end-run around the Constitution and the laws of the land.
(Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday January 28 2019, @04:49PM (5 children)
So how exactly were the uses of these drones performing law enforcement / execution of the laws of the country and states?
Oh, they weren't. Which means the Posse Comitatus Act has nothing to do with this particular story, as it rare does with any support activities of the defense department. And to the contrary you can find instances (look up the Wikipedia article) where armed forces were directly used in law enforcement and found to be violations of said act.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 28 2019, @08:49PM (4 children)
What I actually find remarkable is that there were only 11 deployments of all types of drones, less than one per month, in a country with a population over 350M... that's incredible restraint, IMO.
As for:
Back in the 2012 timeframe I worked for a small drone company which provided a service to local law enforcement, giving them aerial intel before they SWATted a drug house. Again, that count of 11 seems vanishingly small if uses like this are included.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 01 2019, @09:23PM (3 children)
I wonder about that count as well. I'm thinking training missions must not be counted, as I'm sure they do training in the U.S.....
But the execution part: Providing strategic or tactical intelligence isn't arresting anybody - the actual execution of the law. Posse basically says the armed forces shall not be used to make arrests / act as cops. Hence a bunch of MPs got into trouble when they started directing traffic and assisting law enforcement in an actual enforcement capacity.
Now if the drone launched a missile at the drug dealer's house, different ball of wax.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 02 2019, @01:31AM (2 children)
They did fit a small grenade to one of those drones and test fire it - managed to kill a pickup truck: engine block and both (simulated) occupants. Then the government proceeded to award the multi-million dollar development contract to their preferred contractor whose plane couldn't hit the target.
But, no, never did that kind of work for local law enforcement, that I know of.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Saturday February 02 2019, @02:09PM (1 child)
It's really confusing, though, when any platform can be used for multiple purposes. Only law or procedures stops crossing the lines then. (Thinking of the Philiadelphia MOVE bombing back in the... 80s?)
But thinking about it, the good old Huey is used by many, many government agencies including firefighting, and it can be easily configured as a gunship. (OK, fine... Blackhawk, then. Same difference and lordy I'm getting older....)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 02 2019, @10:12PM
2 guys in a pickup truck with a bed full of grenades can do an astounding amount of damage before anybody would have a chance of stopping them...
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday January 28 2019, @04:52PM (1 child)
In any of the uses concerned were the MQ-9's actually carrying warshots? My guess is no. Which makes that sentence the purest FUD. (Not to mention it goes on to say some of the activities were using DJI Phantoms no less).
Nothing to see here, move along....
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday January 28 2019, @10:04PM
If they were, it will be declassified and released under FOI, shortly after I'm dead I assume:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash [wikipedia.org]
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday January 28 2019, @04:56PM (1 child)
It would be interesting to see just how far politicians could stretch the meaning of disaster relief.
Sort of like stretching the meaning of "national emergency". For example, 9/11 was a national emergency. The people of the US rallied behind the president whether they voted for him or not. Democrats and Republicans stood united on the capital steps and sang God Bless America. In a real national emergency, there is close to unanimous support for the efforts to do something to rectify it.
Now "national emergency" can mean anything the president wants, even if there is deep division, or even majority opposition.
We've already seen how "terrorism" is the magical card to grant emergency powers, the PATRIOT act, create TSA to search for nail clippers. Stand back! I'm going to take over the plane with my nail clippers! CLIP! CLIP CLIP!!! Stand back I say! Nobody could possibly overpower me with my trusty nail clippers!
I can't want to see what they can do with "Disaster Relief".
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 1) by DmT on Monday January 28 2019, @05:40PM
Even more disturbing is that I have to give my fingerprints when I get my travel passport - in a totally different country than the US, just because - maybe I want to visit the US some day and the US requires that, so my (US military protection enjoying) country also requires that.
Additionally, my one blade Gillette blades get confiscated most of the time in European flights - perhaps I will shave some (terrorists) beard off with them during flight and cause a calamity? :P