Posted on 11/30/2019 12:04:17 PM PST by ransomnote
The Justice Department announced today the publication of its updated Policy on the Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems. In light of advancements in unmanned aircraft system (UAS) technology, and lessons learned from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s limited use of UAS, the Policy enables the Department of Justice’s law enforcement components to safely and responsibly employ UAS technology within a framework designed to provide accountability and protect privacy and civil liberties.
“UAS technology assists the Department in protecting public safety and, most importantly, reduces risks to officers and the public,” said Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy. “Our new policy promotes the responsible, appropriate, and effective use of UAS by the Department and can serve as a model for our state, local, tribal, and territorial public safety partners as they develop their own UAS programs and best practices.”
The Policy permits the use of UAS only in connection with properly authorized investigations and activities. It also requires compliance with the Constitution and all applicable laws and regulations, including regulations issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. Department of Justice components anticipate using UAS to support crime scene response and investigation, search and rescue, and site security, among other authorized uses. In order to ensure accountability and airspace safety, the Department requires UAS operations to be approved at an appropriate level and conducted by personnel who meet Department-wide training standards. Importantly, the new policy also requires components to evaluate UAS acquisitions for cybersecurity risks, guarding against potential threats to the supply chain and DOJ’s networks.
The Policy reflects the Department’s strong commitment to the protection of privacy and civil liberties, mandating annual privacy reviews of UAS programs and assessments of new UAS technology from a privacy perspective. It also places limits on data retention, generally requiring privacy sensitive data to be deleted within 180 days, unless certain exceptions are met.
In addition to utilizing UAS as a law enforcement tool, the Department takes seriously the threat posed by unlawful and unsafe uses of UAS. The Department has trained federal prosecutors and agents across the country on the criminal and civil enforcement tools available to counter the misuse of UAS, such as the use of drones to smuggle contraband into prisons or violate restricted airspace. Department of Justice personnel have also trained and collaborated with senior state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement officials who face this new threat on a daily basis. The Department welcomes lawful and beneficial uses of UAS, which promise to enhance the economy and transform the delivery of goods and the provision of critical services ranging from search-and-rescue to industrial inspections. At the same time, the Department will not hesitate to take action against those who threaten the safety of our skies and the public.
The updated Policy announced today draws on the Department’s long history of leveraging cutting-edge technology to protect the public while promoting our values and the rule of law.
The publication of the updated policy can be found here.
Lrn 2 read.
Publik skool made me smart.
Seems you were saying the enabling rule applied to citizens and the agency, when it reads clearly that this rule applies to the agency. It applies to the agency, an agency that should be limited by the constitution. It is not a rule that is aimed at limiting citizen rights.
If you disagree, I was wondering why you didn’t raise your objection or concerns to the Agency when it was out for public comment. I did, called people I know in DOJ and asked them a few questions. It’s an awful rule and I told them that.
I may be smart (being educated in public schools), I saw no snark aimed at you. That confuses. Just because someone has a different opinion does not mean they are your enemy and should be a target of your snark.
Cheers!
FRiend, I wasn’t trying to piss you off.
I simply didn’t say any such thing.
My initial post on the topic stated that the rule could not be reconciled with the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, and went on to include the text of that amendment.
Anyway, you’re free to believe as you wish about what I mean, or how I intended my replies; after all, I’m just words on a screen.
No harm. Cheers
Exactly! I was pulled over because the car was registered to a owner of a suspend license. No traffic infractions. Just because the car was registered to a person with a suspended liscense. Both leo had no idea who was driving a properly register and insured car. If you’re cool with that, that’s your thing. I thought it was intrusive.
Mind you, both times I was not cited.
They don’t know who’s driving the car, and I dont think I should be pulled over for the sake of check. The car is legal and I didn’t commit any reason to be pulled over.
I don’t object to reasonable searches but strongly object to unreasonable ones. The technology you’ve described has been in use for decades by manned craft. I simply don’t see the difference if a man is sitting in a craft, using this technology or if someone is viewing the same data from a remote location using an unmanned craft. FYI, I’m not up to anything. I just want to make sure that law enforcement has the tools necessary to catch bad guys, like illegals crossing the border or drug smugglers and human traffickers.
Won’t get used to track illegals, that’s not what most of Washington wants.
They want to trample our rights.
“He probably has system in his vehicle that is scanning everybody’s license plate and bumping them against a database.”
I believe that is all done hands free - by the computer.
Law enforcement uses that type of technology To go after criminals but as far as Washington goes, they seem to misuse a lot of things. I think we’ve seen that the fact that no policy exists regarding surveillance hasn’t stopped them yet. It only hampers the good guys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.