Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
FIGURE 6.4
Some police departments have acquired small unmanned drones to serve as
surveillance platforms.
Some critics point to Great Britain as proof that surveillance cameras cannot guar-
antee public safety. There are 4.2 million surveillance cameras in Britain, one for every
14 people. It has been estimated that the average Briton is caught on camera an average
of 300 times per day [12]. Still, the presence of all these cameras did not prevent the sui-
cide bombings in the London subway system in 2005 [13]. Some experts have reached
the conclusion that closed-circuit television cameras are “largely ineffective” for crime
prevention [14].
Nine police departments in six different states have begun operating unmanned drones
(Figure 6.4). Police drones are nothing like the large Predator drones used in Afghan-
istan; Federal Administration Aviation rules require that drones used by the police weigh
no more than 25 pounds, fly no higher than 400 feet, and be flown during daylight
within view of the operator [15]. Possible uses of the small drones include searching for
missing persons, surveying storm damage to isolated neighborhoods, controlling illegal
immigration, pursuing fugitive criminals, and performing surveillance at large public
gatherings [16].
Some uses of police drones are supported by the public, but others are not. In a
recent poll conducted by Monmouth University, 66 percent of Americans expressed
privacy concerns related to the use of unmanned drones with high-tech cameras by
US law enforcement agencies and 67 percent opposed the use of drones to issue speeding
tickets, but 80 percent supported the use of drones in search-and-rescue missions [17].
Numerous cities and states are currently debating what controls, if any, should be
placed on the police use of drones. Should police be required to get a search warrant
