Read the following news article that discusses police surveillance:
http://news.yahoo.com/drone-policing-us-seen-wild-west-215907770.html
Then, answer the following questions that relate to the article:
1. What regulation in North Dakota has brought the issue of drone usage back to the forefront of the news?
2. What kind of certificate does a police force have to obtain before using drones?
3. What concerns does the ACLU have about the widespread use of drones?
4. Name some of the examples from the article that exemplify drones as being a waste of money.
5. Do you think that drones should be used by police forces for surveillance and enforcement of the law?
Reagan Ray
ReplyDelete1. A law is made allowing police to equip the aircraft with teargas.
2. The police have to obtain a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. Some of the drones have speakers and could invade someone's privacy by hearing their whole conversation. Also, the drones can go unnoticed while peering into houses and worship.
4. Drones have been bought for $600,000 and have never been used before. Also, a drone crashed that was $12 million a piece.
5. It depends on the situation. I believe that drones should be used in public places, but not for personal matters unless it is crime related.
Jon Oue
ReplyDelete1. The law allows the drones to be equipped with tear gas.
2. They have to obtain a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. They say it would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights.
4. It is a waste of money.
5. I believe that drones should not be used because we have a right to not have our privacy infringed on. People should be spied on by use of drones unless the law enforcement agency knows for certain that they are a criminal and have done something wrong. If they don’t know then citizens have a right to not be spied on just so that the police can have visual on everyone. We have a right to privacy. Not everyone should know everything about us. But if the police need to use the drones for crowd control they should be allowed to use it. It is the citizen’s responsibility to behave if they don’t want they police to use drones. We’re leaning to heavily on technology.
Avery Thomas
ReplyDelete1. A law was passed that allowed police drones to be armed with teargas.
2. They have obtain a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. They could use the drone to spy on us and invade our privacy rights.
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives spent a huge amount of money on drones and then never used them, Seattle bought drones but then gave up on them, and a bunch of other states have them but can never use them.
5. I can see how both sides of this argument are valid. Drones are hard to spot and dangerous to power lines and low flying airplanes. They could be used to spy on civilians and gather way too much information on us. However, drones would give the police force a huge advantage over criminals and could potentially lower crime rates. Both have their pros and cons, and I think they could be allowed with close surveillance and strict guidelines on how they should be used.
Lacey Martin
ReplyDelete1. A law that allows police to equip drones with tear gas
2. A certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. That law-enforcement may be using the technology to invade peoples privacy rights.
4. One bureau bought 600,000 dollars worth of drones and didn't use them. Another bought a predator military drone at 12 million, and promptly crashed it.
5. I think police should use drones for law enforcement to some extent, but they should definitely have some regulations for when and where these drones are allowed to be used, there should also be some screening for the people operating these drones, if not someone could attempt to use them for non-law enforcement related activities. There should also be a limited budget on how much to spend on drones depending on the size of police force and its needs,so no money is wasted.
Hallie Grace Hamner
ReplyDelete1. The regulation that police drones may now be equipped with teargas.
2. A certificate from Federal Aviation Administration saying that they can use small drones.
3. That these drones might invade our right to privacy.
4. One example of this is the fact that Customs and Border Protection’s $12 million dollar drone crashed and broke. Another example is that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives purchased about $600,000 worth of these drones, and now they don’t put them to use.
5. No, I do not think that police drones should be used. Especially not ones equipped with tear gas. Although these drones might help some, I think the cons of this outweigh the pros. These drones are wasting public funds and malfunctioning. We need to develop better technology if we want to buy and depend so heavily on drones. Also, drones that can spy on you definitely infringe on privacy rights. We shouldn’t bend the basic freedoms we have in America to catch criminals. Not to mention, have these actually helped solve any crimes? I would like to see some evidence before I put my faith in something that costs so much money from citizens.
Amy Ingle-
ReplyDelete1. They are allowed to put teargas in the drones now
2. They have to have a certificate from the FAA
3. They are concerned about privacy
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, bought $600,000 worth of drones without ever using them and Customs and Border Protection meanwhile froze its purchase program after one of its large Predator military drones -- with a price tag of $12 million a piece -- crashed.
5. No, I think that it is a waste and it invades on peoples privacy. I am sure they can find better ways that cost less money to help police do their job.
1. The Specter of Armed Drones
ReplyDelete2. A certificate from the digital rights group Electric Frontier Foundation to make sure its okay
3.It might violate the privacy rights of people
4. You need certification, the public might not like it, and it might invade privacy
5. Yes, but only for those reasons and that's all.
Chris Perkins
ReplyDelete1. North dakota has passed a law allowing police drones to be equipped with tear gas.
2. to obtain a drone you need a special certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. They have concerns about privacy and rights being violated, because of the drones high-tech capabilities of recording, analyzing faces, voice receivers,and etc.
4. Some examples of drones wasting money are the alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosions bureau spent about 600,000 dollars on drones that went unused and the Customs and Border Patrol making 12 million dollar drones that couldn't be used after one crashed.
5. I think that drones should be able to used by police as long as they use them for the right purposes, like finding criminals, but they need to be highly kept in check and regulated, because of their danger and invasions of privacy. Drones are very helpful, though, because they can find criminals easily and most importantly keep officers safer, because drones main purposes are to keep soldiers and others safer.
Alex George
ReplyDelete1) Drones can now be equipped with tear gas.
2) As long as a police force passes a certain set of conditions then they get a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration they can start to use drones in there police force.
3) The ACLU are afraid that it’s a violation of privacy acts because they believe that some drones could be equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology, and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations.
4) law enforcement gets a bird's eye view of accident and crime scenes, can search for suspects or missing people and obtain tactical information when, for example, a dangerous suspect has barricaded himself.
An unmanned drone cost police $15,000 to $50,000, far less than the $500,000 to $3 million a helicopter can fetch.
5) I believe that drones should be used in law enforcement because they can give the upper hand to the police by attaining certain information that would otherwise never have been obtained. Drones can find weak points in a criminal’s plan that could have only been found by using a drone. Drones can be used in riots to launch tear gas at the rioters giving the police a safe opportunity to apprehend them. In cases of bad weather drones can be used to look for people in debris in regions where people can’t get to.
Jake Hammonds
ReplyDelete1. The use of drones with tear gas equipped on them.
2. One from the FAA.
3. They are scared that "Without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights."
4. An example of how drones are a waste of money is that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wasted $600,000 by buying drones and never using them.
5. I do believe police should be able to use the drones for surveillance and enforcement of law because it could be very efficient in the way of saving lives by sending a drone in with tear gas, or it could even be used for speeding on the highway if the drone had a radar on it and was also recording the police could very easily catch people in that way.
Jesslyin Edwards
ReplyDelete1. The privacy rights which states that nobody can tap into someone's personal information without conformation first.
2. They need to have a warrant on that specific drone before it goes into flight.
3. That it would mess with their privacy rights they have already established by peering into someone's window at home or place of worship.
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives bought $600,000 worth of drones without ever using them, and Customs and Border Protection's large Predator military drones that cost $12 million a piece crashed.
5. I think that they should when they are only on very important cases that could affect the majority of the population. I also think that they shouldn't, because they might use it for personal needs and not professional like they need to do. They are humans and are capable of about anything, so you don't know what they will do or what they got going on in their mind when they have that drone. Using drones has its pros and cons, but it all depends on the danger and situation at hand.
Liam Andrus
ReplyDelete1. A law was passed that allows police to equip the aircraft with teargas.
2. A Certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
3. They are concerned that the drones, with such advance technology, will be an invasion to our privacy rights.
4. First, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wasted $600,000 on drones and never even used them. Also, a military drone that was worth $12 million dollars crashed.
5. Personally, I definitely wouldn't like a drones watching me and others, because it feels like an invasion of privacy, especially if the drones are equipped with advance technology like facial recognition and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations. Although, If people could overcome self awareness and insecurity, then drones would decrease crime right, and help keep innocent people innocent.
Elaine Doyle
ReplyDelete1 drones can have tear gas
2 one from the federal aviation administration
3 invasion of privacy
4 some organizations never used their drones and others crashed them
5 No, it is not a problem now, but if the government went wrong it would be too powerful of a spying weapon for them to have.
Joy Chou
ReplyDelete1. Police are allowed to equip drones with teargas.
2. A warrant
3. It would violate privacy rights.
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives spent $600,000 on drones that ended up never being used. Also, one of Customs and Border Protection’s large military drones, which was worth $12 million, crashed.
5. I believe that drones should only be used if the police have obtained a warrant.
1. Since 2012, government agencies can use small drones -- weighing less than 55 pounds, or 25 kilograms -- under certain conditions
ReplyDelete2. After obtaining a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. "Without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights," the ACLU said.
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for example, bought $600,000 worth of drones without ever using them.
Customs and Border Protection meanwhile froze its purchase program after one of its large Predator military drones -- with a price tag of $12 million a piece -- crashed.
5. Yes, there is no reason why they should not be able to use drones for POLICE services. But, I don't think that just anyone should be allowed to own/operate a drone. It would be an extreme invasion of privacy to the public for any random person to be able to fly a drone. Using drones for police use is good, it could free an innocent man, or persecute a guilty one.
Yahya M Abusaad.
ReplyDelete(1. The specter of armed drones
(2.Drone certificate
(3.The ACLU is concerned about the fact that the drones are able to identify and monitor people and their conversations violating their privacy.
(4.The drones cost at least 15,000 and have certain difficulties when it comes to dealing with them due to violation of privacy in public, drone fights, and peering into buildings.
(5.I don't think that drones should be used for surveillance and law enforcement because they easily get out of hand and the cost is too much.It would be easier to install a camera to insure that a certain level of privacy that has already been violated won't be extended.
Caitlyn Lewis 6th period
ReplyDelete1. That police can use drones as long as they weigh less than 55 pounds
2. A Federal Aviation Administration certificate
3. That the drones are small enough to spy on civilians and invade our privacy
4. Drones are easy to crash and break but very expensive and some people will oppose it and it may be outlawed and all that money they spent went down the drain.
5.Personally, As long as they don't start spying on civilians unnecessarily and use them only for law enforcement I am fine with it. It keeps us safer.
ReplyDeleteNia Hodges
1.A law passed that allowed police to equip the aircrafts with teargas.
2.A certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
3.They feel that without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology, and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights.
4.The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for example, bought $600,000 worth of drones without ever using them. Customs and Border Protection meanwhile froze its purchase program after one of its large Predator military drones -- with a price tag of $12 million a piece -- crashed.
5.Yes, I believe that these drones would be very useful in lowering the crime rate as long as they are used in public places only. I do not think drones should be able to be used on private properties because we are entitled to our privacy. I also do not believe that they should equip the drones with weapons, lethal or nonlethal. Drones are not people and they can malfunction. It would be horrible if a drone malfunctioned and someone were to get hurt from being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
KaRon Coleman Jr.
ReplyDelete1. The specter of armed drones surfaced with a law passed
2. A certificate.
3. Without proper regulation, it would cause unprecedented invasions of their privacy rights.
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives bought $600,000 worth of drones without using them. Custom and Border Protection used one of its large Predator military drones worth $12 million crashed.
5. Yes and no because one, it could simply be a waste of money using drones instead of more useful and dependable stuff, but it could be put to good use. So basically it shouldn't be used by police because it's just lazy.
Jessica Elwood
ReplyDelete1. that allows police to equip the aircraft with teargas.
2. obtaining a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. That would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights.
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for example, bought $600,000 worth of drones without ever using them. Predator military drones with a price tag of $12 million a piece crashed.
5. No I do not think drones should be used as surveillance because that could be an invasion of privacy and could cause complete chaos. I've seen little toy drones too, so what if somebody got that mixed up with an actual drone. People may even shoot at the drones knowing what they are used for. Yes it is cool and all, but there's too many risk with it. In the article it even says that the drones are costly, I say switch to something more useful and less expensive if crashed.
Arianna Taylor
ReplyDelete5th Period
1. A law that allows police to equip the aircraft with tear gas caused the drone usage issue to resurface in North Dakota.
2. Before using drones, the police must have a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. The ACLU worries that drones are a waste of money.
4. The drones are equipped with facial recognition, invading privacy and people don't even use them.
5. Drones should be used by police because they can't be seen by someone committing a crime.
LAUREN BECK
ReplyDelete1) They have to weigh less than 55 pounds.
3) They are afraid that the drones will monitor personal conversations and invade privacy.
4)"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for example, bought $600,000 worth of drones without ever using them."
5) I believe that drones could be of some use to the police forces. However, there is a fine line between using them to find criminals or look at crime scenes, and peeking in on the public and their conversations. Police can and should use it for the right reasons, but based off of the drama and actions of the police force lately, how can we as the public trust the police with yet another item that could cause problems? Overall, I think that drones would be good for the police if they used them in the right way.
Ben Hall
ReplyDelete1. A law that allows the police to equip drones with teargas.
2. You need to be a certified pilot.
3. That without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights.
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for example, bought $600,000 worth of drones without ever using them. Customs and Border Protection meanwhile froze its purchase program after one of its large Predator military drones -- with a price tag of $12 million a piece -- crashed.
5. In my opinion, both yes and no. Yes because it could have a great affect, and prevent crimes and save lots of lives. But on the other hand, people can steal or hack one of these drones, and have tremendous power, being able to legally spy on people.
Elijah Lane A.K.A The PokemMaster!1.Tear gas of course.
ReplyDelete2.
3. Privacy being exposed and Showing up at inappropriate times( EX. Church, Wedding).
4.The Bureau of Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives LITERALLY bought $600,000 WORTH OF DRONES, WITHOUT USING THEM!!! The Customs and Border people paid $12 MILLION DOLLARS for a drone and CRASHED IT! If this is what adults pay for working 9 to 5, i'm staying a kid.
No, because have we ever needed drones before? NO. We might screw up but thats because we are human, if the machine messes up who ya gonna blame? As i always say, Its not the controller, but the wielder of it.
Brent Smith
ReplyDelete1. Small drone regulations
2. FAA certificate
3. Invasion of privacy
4. The bureau of alcohol, tobacco, & firearms bought $600,000 worth of drones w/out using them.
5. Yes I belive they would be a great help in finding suspects and also it would be a lot cheeper to buy and use a drone than a helicopter.
Burton Drawhorn 6th period 9th 9/17/15
ReplyDelete1. A law was passed in Norh Dakota that allows police to equip tear gas to drones.
2. Police forces have to obtain a warrant before every used drone flight.
3. That the police could use drones to invade our privacy anywhere and everywhere they wanted to.
4. When police buy drones and dont use them, when programs are closed after they bought drones and when some are crashed and then they discontinue the program that uses them.
5. I think that police drones should be used in some situations. When police are searching for criminals or lookin for wanted criminalsand use drones with facial scanners to find them then it would be appropriate. People loose their right to privacy when they break the law and kill someone or are smuggling drugs. However police should not be allowed to use drones just regularly and all then time to monitor places, that is what patrol officers are for. Police should be allowed to use drones when needed but not just whenever and all the time because it would be an invasion of peoples privacy. People that uphold and follow the law.
Rachel Walker
ReplyDelete1. A law passing in North Dakota that allows police to equip the aircraft with tear
gas.
2. A certificate from Federal Aviation Administration.
3. Violating privacy rights.
4. A predator military drone that costs $12 million crashed and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives bought $600,000 worth of drones without using them.
5. I don't think that drones should be used by police forces for surveillance and enforcement of law. Drones are a waste of money and the small drones that can go unnoticed could possibly be used for different situations such as invasion of privacy, which could have a bad outcome and it's not worth the political risk. Instead of wasting our money on drones that could easily get damaged and aren't used, we should use other equipment for law enforcement and surveillance like we have now and in the past.
Katherine Pham
ReplyDelete1. allows police to equip the aircraft with teargas
2. a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration
3. does not have authority on privacy protection and there no specific framework on a issue on a national level
4. public will grow increasingly uncomfortable, law enforcements will used them more, and an unmanned aircraft costs police 15000 to 50000 dollars
5. Yes and no because if police do use the drones it'll be great for spying or any types of upcoming threats...something like that. No because I feel like its a waste of money and plus it invades people privacy which leads people's right of having there privacy.
Chris Thomas
ReplyDelete1)The regulation allows police to attach tear gas to drones.
2)A certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3)They are afraid of invasion of privacy.
4)The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives bought $600,000 worth of drones and never used them.
5)i think that they should be used but only with a warrant. It is your property and they shouldn't be able to come in and spy on you.
Griffin Eldridge
ReplyDelete1. Police can now equip drones with tear gas.
2. A warrant.
3. They say, "its still a bit of wild west" which means they say that the drones have not been tested enough to use widespread.
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives bought 600,000 dollars worth of drones and never used them, then the Customs and Border Protection bought a large 12 million dollar drone, that crashed...
5. I do not think they should be used now because they have not been tested enough so they are unreliable. At least not for enforcement of the law because that is too big of a risk for an untested drone, if they used it for anything it should just be surveillance.
Jared Snyder
ReplyDelete1. They thought about equipping the drones with tear gas.
2. They have to use small drones. and after obtaining a certificate from the federal aviation administration.
3. They did not want to invade peoples privacy.
4. They never been used, it's a waste of money.
5. I believe that drones should be used in police force. It's a safer way to get info on a specific person or place. However, I dont believe that they should use them past the invasion of privacy. They should use them only for research.
Samantha Hayes
ReplyDelete1. Equipping the aircrafts with teargas has brought the drones back to the attention of the news.
2. They have to have a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. They are concerned about invading citizens privacy.
4. Customs and Border Protection purchased a $12 million drone and it crashed.
5. If it is used correctly I think it's fine. If they were chasing a criminal using a helicopter the criminal would know to run and hide. With a drone it is usually smaller and quieter so the police would have an advantage.
Also, I think they need to keep the citizens privacy in mind as they use the drones.
Sam Webb
ReplyDelete1. Allows police to put teargas on drones.
2. One from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. Could cause privacy right problems.
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spent $600,000 worth of drones and never used them.
5. Yes, but only if it's not disturbing our rights.
Baylie Smithson
ReplyDelete1. A law was passed saying that police were allowed to put teargas in the drones.
2. Drone certification
3. It could violate privacy rights.
4.The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, bought $600,000 worth of drones without ever using them. Customs and Border Protection froze its purchase program after one of its large Predator military drones with a price tag of $12 million a piece crashed.
5. I think that drones should be allowed only to try and track down suspects or to watch a wanted suspect, not to fly around claiming they are watching for crimes but really just watching whoever and whatever they see.
India Kasteler
ReplyDelete1. It allows police to equip the aircraft with teargas
2. Federal Aviation Administration
3. They are afraid that it will invade our privacy rights
4. They were not being used and some were even crashing
5. I think they should not because they could be watching you anywhere and some things should be private like when I am at Church and at home.
Cameron Simon
ReplyDelete1)that the drones are equip with teargas
2)A certificate from the FAA
3)Invasion of privacy
4)people don't use them, They crash it
5) The drone should only be used for enforcement for example when a riot has happen and only be used for surveillance when the need arises for tactical advantages and not to spy on other people because it would be an invasion of privacy.
Frankie Malveo.
ReplyDelete1.What regulation in North Dakota has brought the issue of drone usage back to the forefront of the news? The state passed a law that allowed the police to equip drones with tear gas.
2. What kind of certificate does a police force have to obtain before using drones?
A certificate from the FAA allowing them to fly.
3. What concerns does the ACLU have about the widespread use of drones?Without proper regulations the drones would invade our privacy.
4. Name some of the examples from the article that exemplify drones as being a waste of money.
DEpartments are buying hundreds of thousands of dollars in drones just to put them on standby because of public backlash. Also, the drones seem to be faulty.
5. Do you think that drones should be used by police forces for surveillance and enforcement of the law? Yes,I think drones should only be used if necessary and should not be a nuisance to the people who you are trying to protect. I also think you should not use a drone without a warrant.
Brianna Ashcraft
ReplyDelete1.) They are wanting to equip there drones with teargas.
2.) They have to get a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration. The regulation is that they have to be a certain size.
3.) They believe it would violate our privacy rights without proper regulations.
4.) “ The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, for example, bought $600,000 worth of drones without ever using them.”
- They are concerned about wasted public funds.
5.) I can’t decide if I would want police force to use them for enforcement of the law. In some cases I would because they would be very useful if a police needed to stop a crowd of defiant people and he was outnumbered so he could use the gas to stop them if they would not stop after being asked too. As of right now I do not think they should use them for surveillance because that is a violation of our privacy that we have as citizens.
1. A law passed in North Dakota last month allowing the police department to use drones that are equipped with tear gas.
ReplyDelete2. A certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. The ACLU is concerned that, "Without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights.”
4. One example of these funds being wasted is the $600,000 spent on drones that The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives bought and didn’t ever use. Also, Customs and Border Protection bought and crashed a Predator military drone, and the purchasing program delayed from buying the $12 million apiece drones.
5. I feel that they should be used by the law, if and only if they use them responsibly. Obviously I want them to help keep me safe by catching criminals and keeping the bad guys under surveillance, but if it comes to overstepping a citizen’s boundaries and invading their privacy without good reason (or a warrant) then no, I do not want them to have drone access.
Tyler Frederick
ReplyDelete1. The regulation that allowed them to equip the drones with teargas
2. A certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration
3. Drones would cause unprecedented invations of our privacy rights
4. One example is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,and Explosives bought $600,000 worth of drones and never used them. Another example is a $12 million drone crashed.
5. Drones should not be used by police forces. They are a violation of privacy. They could be dangerous if they were equipped with weapons and they crashed.
Dustin Spencer
ReplyDeletePeriod 6th
Police in the North Dakota police force are wanting to equip tear gas in the drone. Police have to have a pilot's license before even thinking about using a drone. With that being done, the ACLU is still worried about invasion of privacy because the drone has infrared technology, facial recognition software, and a super sensitive microphone while easily being undetected by the human in an everyday routine. Some think it is a waste of money because they cost $50,000 each and they sometimes crash and they then have crashed $50,000 into the ground. Some are even thinking about where the money is coming from and if taxes are being raised for them. In my opinion, police forces should only use drones in certain situations like a hostage setting, they could fly over and look to see what is going on in a place where they can not reach without it. With other situations no, they have satellites in space that can do the same thing the drones can, with less money also, because they have been in space for over 40 plus years. So no, police departments should not be able to use drones at all, they are a waste of time, money, and materials.
Kelsi Hobson
ReplyDelete1. The police are now able to equip the drone with teargas.
2. It has to come from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. That it will invade ones privacy.
4. They could never get used and might cause a public outcry.
5. Yes, because it is a safer way for the police to hunt down suspects and catch people breaking the law.
Zoie Pritchett
ReplyDelete1 A law that allowed police to use tear gas
2 Federal Aviation Administration
3 They fear that without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology and speaker capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights.
4 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives bought $600,000 worth of drones without using them.
5 Yes because nowadays, we need all the protection and surveillance we can get. Society keeps getting worse and worse and so many evil things are happening in the world and with extra eyes, it’ll hopefully help the policeman.
Elle Turner
ReplyDelete1.Police can equip the drone with tear gas.
2.Federal aviation admin
3.''Its still a bit of a wild west'
4.''for a lot of them, its a bit of a political risk''
5.Yes.
Maxine Ball, 6th
ReplyDelete1. The specter of armed drones.
2. From the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. Without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights.
4. They tend to crash and they could invade privacy.
5. I think drones could help police out in many ways. For example, drones can go many places where actual human officers can't, such as dense forests or other dangerous places. They also seem like they would be great security devices, giving officers a bird's eye view of a suspect or while searching for a missing person.
Abby Holmes
ReplyDelete1. police can use teargas on their drones
2. a certificate from the FAA
3. they think it is a bit wild west
4. it could invade someones property and they are not reliable
5. yes, it is an easy way for police to keep citizens safe
Serenity Marcum, 6th
ReplyDelete1. Police may equip the drones with tear gas
2. Federal Aviation Administration
3. The ACLU said that it's "still a little bit Wild West"
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives bought $600,000 worth of drones, but never used them and one of the Customs and Border Protection's large Predator military drones crashed which cost them $12 million
5. I don't think drones should be used by police because they are a huge waste of money and they can be abused by the police force who may use them to invade our privacy and use the tear gas or whatever the drone is equipped with to punish someone who happen to have upset whoever is controlling the drone.
Keyanna Stokes
ReplyDelete1.allows police to equip the aircraft with teargas
2. certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3.does not have authority on privacy protection and there is no specific framework on the issue on a national level.
4.The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for example, bought $600,000 worth of drones without ever using them.;Customs and Border Protection meanwhile froze its purchase program after one of its large Predator military drones -- with a price tag of $12 million a piece -- crashed
5.I think they should use the drones for police work because it can help with going into dangerous places and hide easily. I believe it will help solve more crimes and help save peoples lives. But at the same time I believe it will be wrong to use it too because it can be a waste of money to other organizations also and it could be an invasion of privacy to citizens.
Erica Ramsey
ReplyDelete1. The law allows police to equip the aircraft with teargas.
2. Small drones that weigh less than 55 pounds, under certain conditions, and must have a certificate from the FAA.
3. They have concerns on privacy issues because of certain things some of the drones can do.
4. They are already very expensive to begin with, and if they crash it's even worse.
5. No they really shouldn't. Why let a machine do the job of someone getting paid to do the same thing. The problem with it is the privacy thing, and the more advanced drones invade citizens privacy more. That is not okay in my opinion. Police are taking things too far now. Honestly with these drones it makes it like The Hunger Games where the government watches everything they do, and most of the people who read the books were appalled by the lack of privacy. So I think that drones should not be used we are doing pretty well without them, and if people wouldn't be ignorant and greedy there would be less crime so we won't have to think about drones.
Sarah Taylor
ReplyDelete1. The law allows the police drones to have a teargas feature.
2. They have to get a certificate from the FAA.
3.They believe it can be an unprecedented invasion of their privacy.
4. They bought drones and then based on the public's reaction, never used them.
5. I believe the drones could be a good idea. I also believe they could very easily and would more than likely be abused. They make it to wear each individual could have little to no privacy anymore. They could be very helpful in investigations. There should be very extensive criteria that each situation must meet before officials use drones.
Holly McDonough
ReplyDelete1. They can use teargas on drones.
2. Federal aviation administrative
3. It invades privacy of citizens and they are expensive.
4. It is a big political risk.
5. No, they could be used for the wrong reasons.
Payton Brown
ReplyDelete1. Police are now allowed to use aircraft with teargas.
2. Police must receive a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.
3. ACLU are concerned that drones could invade others privacy.
4. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives have bought 600,000 dollar drones and still haven’t used them.
5. I think drones should not be used as they are an invasion of privacy and could record our conversations.
Wynn
ReplyDelete1. Cops can use drones with tear gas.
2. Federal Aviation Admin.
3. They can invade our privacy.
4. They are at risk of causing a outcry in the general populous.
5. Drones can be useful for law enforcement, but must be regulated for the safety of the public.
1.They equipped police with tear gas for the drones. crystal bolden
ReplyDelete2.Federal aviation administration
3.They invade people privacy by monitoring peoples conversations.
4.they tend to crash and they don't go to use.
5.no, because it is a step into the future and drones will take over the world.
Tyra Dunn
ReplyDelete1: To allow police to equip the aircraft with teargas.
2: They have to get drove certification.
3: Mass surveillance concerns the ACLU.
4: The Bureau bought $600,000 of drones and never used them. The military bought a 12 million dollar drone, and it crashed.
5: No, because it destroys some of the privacy we voted for in our homes. We already have surveillance cameras everywhere. Home is the only place people feel safe now-a-days.
Elle Allen
ReplyDelete1. They are now allowed to be equipped with tear gas.
2. They must obtain a certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration
3. They are concerned that it's a violation of privacy
4. Seattle bought drones, and never used them.
5. It depends on the situation, I think it's fine for the drones to be used for that purpose, but not for any other reason. It could get out of hand, and they cost a lot of money which becomes a waste.
Christian Taylor
ReplyDelete5th
1.police forces have asked for drone cetification.
2.Federal Aviation Administration
3."Without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights.
4.The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spent 600,000 dollars on drones without using them.
5.Even if the police gets a better view of the community, I can see how it could interfere with the privacy of people. At the end of the day I think it is a waste of money. If the police is going to do something like this, they would have to actually use them.
1. This provides tear gas for the drones.
ReplyDelete2. Federal Aviation Administration.
3. "It is still a bit of the wild west"
4. For a lot of them, it is politically a risk and dangerous.
5. Yes because it is safer for the police and the drones can be protective and helpful.
Natalie Neubert 5th Period
Madeline King
ReplyDelete1.) the police can equip the aircraft with teargas
2.)Federal Aviation Administration
3.) it will invade ones privacy
4.) they could invade privacy and crash
5.) yes, they can go to places faster and many places the police may not be able to go
DESTINI ERWIN
ReplyDelete1. The law allows the drones to be equipped with tear gas.
2. Federal Aviation Administration.
3.invade ones privacy
4. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives bought 600,000$ worth with out using them.
5.Yes because they could be used to see where surveillance cameras can't, but it would also be bad if someone used it for sneeking peeks of men and woman in their homes.
Aly Meadows
ReplyDelete1. It allowed them to put tear gas on the drones
2. They have to get a certificate form Federal Activation Administration
3. They might invade privacy
4. Bureaus are spending a lot of money on drones and are never using them
5.No, I think that drones will just invade peoples privacy and they are a waste. Police have been doing their jobs just fine without jobs before why do they need them now.
Molly McCafferty
ReplyDelete1. Police can equip them with teargas.
2. Federal Aviation Administration
3. Unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights
4. A bureau bought $600,000 worth of drones and never used them.
5. I think they should be used. They could protect our policemen, by going places that our service men and women would surely die if they went. They could also save thousands of lives overall because they could protect us from terrorists and large scale predators.
Luke "swag monster" Hinton
ReplyDelete1 the law lets the dromes have tear gas
2 the federal aviation administration
3 invide privacy
4 would cost altot of money
5. yes , because in the end its all about the U.S safty and its for the greater good