DHS drones detect if you are armed or not

[The Annoyed Man]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57572 ... or-drones/
DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones
Homeland Security's specifications say drones must be able to detect whether a civilian is armed. Also specified: "signals interception" and "direction finding" for electronic surveillance.

[ Image ]
Homeland Security required that this Predator drone, built by General Atomics, be capable of detecting whether a standing human at night is "armed or not."
(Credit: U.S. Department of Homeland Security)

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.
The documents provide more details about the surveillance capabilities of the department's unmanned Predator B drones, which are primarily used to patrol the United States' northern and southern borders but have been pressed into service on behalf of a growing number of law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Texas Rangers, and local police.

Homeland Security's specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they "shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not," meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify "signals interception" technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and "direction finding" technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.

[RX8er]

And want to bet that some US locals will have this capability.... See who is armed, then follow your cellphone.

[baldeagle]

Read the article. They can detect if you are carrying a rifle or shotgun. They can see your concealed handgun.

[03Lightningrocks]

Why am I not surprised? Our government has used the threat of terrorism to raid our rights on every level imaginable. Now they will use the same irrational fear as an excuse to take away our gun rights.

[MadMonkey]

Those specifications only mean that they wanted a camera with high enough resolution to see if someone was carrying a long gun... that's a critical part of a wartime mission (for just about any UAS, not just Predators or Reapers... we always report any weapon we see).

As for listening in on cell phones, well, I did that once with a scanner bought on EBay. Cell tracking with a UAS is essentially the same as using towers, only slower, using triangulation.

The article (to me) is a little paranoid. They can't automatically "detect" a weapon, that's up to a trained payload operator and analyst to verify. They also can't see a concealed weapon.

[jmra]

Those specifications only mean that they wanted a camera with high enough resolution to see if someone was carrying a long gun... that's a critical part of a wartime mission (for just about any UAS, not just Predators or Reapers... we always report any weapon we see).

As for listening in on cell phones, well, I did that once with a scanner bought on EBay. Cell tracking with a UAS is essentially the same as using towers, only slower, using triangulation.

The article (to me) is a little paranoid. They can't automatically "detect" a weapon, that's up to a trained payload operator and analyst to verify. They also can't see a concealed weapon.

We have enough trouble detecting weapons at airports with X-ray machines. How is this thing supposed to detect a concealed weapon from 50k feet?

[RottenApple]

I was kinda wondering about that part. It seems to me that these drones need the capability to detect if a subject is armed and to track their cells phones, especially in a war zone. Other than the potential for misuse (which, lets face it, is rather high with our government), what's the big deal here?

[MadMonkey]

what's the big deal here?

Fear of the unknown.

[Slowplay]

Well, here is what they want known:

[youtube][/youtube]

The resolution and capabilities from 17,500 feet are pretty impressive. Objects as small as six inches can be seen from that altitude, according to the video.

[texanjoker]

wow

[The Annoyed Man]

what's the big deal here?

Fear of the unknown.

I was actually hoping you would see this and chime in. My interest isn't the existence of the technology itself. It isn't even primarily that the technology might be used here in the U.S. I've posted before, even recently, that I can see lots of legitimate uses for drones in the U.S.—forestry and forest fire monitoring, crop analysis, traffic monitoring, and yes, even police work in the same way police departments already are using helicopters. My problem has less to do with what is going into the drones than in who is buying them.

We've all seen the threads about DHS purchasing billions of rounds of ammo (when the rest of us can't get any at all), and I've even seen logical explanations for why it might be justifiable in training terms, given me by a friend of mine who is an LEO with a strong libertarian bent. But there's another thread posted this morning about DHS acquiring 2700 MRAPS—anti-RPG bars and firing ports included? Now, I ask you in all seriousness, why does DHS think that people are going to be firing RPGs at their vehicles? Why do they need rows of firing ports in 2700 vehicles were are essentially urban tanks? What are they gearing up for?

And to put the ammunition purchases in perspective: that 1.2 billion rounds DHS purchased consists of 750 million rounds of .40 S&W pistol/SMG ammo, and 450 million of it is 5.56 NATO. Lake City Arsenal produces approximately 1.6 billion combined rounds of 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, and .50 BMG ammo per year, and I am going to step out on a limb and say that the vast majority of it is 5.56 NATO—simply because the other two are harder to find on the civilian market, even in normal times, and because it stands to reason that the weapons of individual personnel would be fired more frequently than squad/platoon/company level and up weapons, necessitating higher ammo production numbers for those personal weapons.

So, what does that have to do with DHS? Well, there's different ways of looking at it, but remember that 5.56 NATO is an anti-personnel round...... 450 million rounds of 5.56 NATO can mean a few shooters training to and then maintaining a Special Forces level of operational readiness. It can mean a LOT of shooters training to a minimum level. It can mean that they do not intend to expend it at all, but rather to store it against the day they feel they need to use it. All three are troubling, and asked in order of the previous three sentences.....why would DHS need its own "special forces?" Why would DHS need its own "army?" Why would DHS anticipate the future need of 450 million rounds of anti-personnel ammunition?

We already have a national military, and its charter is well known: national defense against invasion, or prosecution of foreign wars. We already have federal domestic "spec ops" programs like the FBI's HRT. DHS's mandate is not to repel foreign invaders (in fact, by refusing to protect the nation's borders, they are proactively NOT repelling foreign invaders). Why do they need shooters whose mission would duplicate HRT's? What other need could there be? A national police force to operate where state and local police refuse to cooperate with federal crackdowns on gun rights, for instance? Those are the kinds of questions that trouble me. It's not the items themselves being purchased, it is who is doing the buying.

So regarding drones: I can see a perfectly legitimate use of a drone equipped with technology enabling the operator to discern whether a human on the ground is carrying a stick or a rifle........IF that drone belongs to U.S. Forest Service and is used in monitoring hunting on federal lands. And if that degree of sensor resolution is also what it takes for a drone operator to determine if the guy on the ground in a forest is carrying a flashlight instead of a road flare, I'm OK with that. If those sensors are used to determine if the underbrush down below is natural vegetation or an illicit marijuana crop, I'm OK with that. But none of those things are part of DHS's charter.

So it's not WHAT is being purchased (within reasonable limitations) that bothers me, it's WHO is buying it—particularly when it is troubling to consider WHY they would need it. So when a department like DHS, who's primary mission appears to be the strangulation of our travel without harassment, begins buying billions of rounds of ammunition, 2700 MRAPS, thousands of "personal defense rifles" (select-fire M4s), the most sophisticated drones equipped with the same technologies being used in the prosecution of foreign wars to track down and kill terrorists overseas, the OVERALL picture ought to be troubling to any sentient observer.

Alex Jones is a buffoon, and I don't bother reading his website. But I do give thought to DHS, which is a poisonous agency run by a woman with a proven track record of indifference to the rights of the people she allegedly "serves." She's a toad, and toads should not have such resources at their disposal. NO GOOD IS GOING TO COME OF THESE PURCHASES, not because of what they are, but because of who's buying them in apparent contradiction to their agency mandate.

[anygunanywhere]

It is for the HOMELAND.

Anygunanywhere

[RottenApple]

what's the big deal here?

Fear of the unknown.

I was actually hoping you would see this and chime in. My interest isn't the existence of the technology itself. It isn't even primarily that the technology might be used here in the U.S. I've posted before, even recently, that I can see lots of legitimate uses for drones in the U.S.—forestry and forest fire monitoring, crop analysis, traffic monitoring, and yes, even police work in the same way police departments already are using helicopters. My problem has less to do with what is going into the drones than in who is buying them.

We've all seen the threads about DHS purchasing billions of rounds of ammo (when the rest of us can't get any at all), and I've even seen logical explanations for why it might be justifiable in training terms, given me by a friend of mine who is an LEO with a strong libertarian bent. But there's another thread posted this morning about DHS acquiring 2700 MRAPS—anti-RPG bars and firing ports included? Now, I ask you in all seriousness, why does DHS think that people are going to be firing RPGs at their vehicles? Why do they need rows of firing ports in 2700 vehicles were are essentially urban tanks? What are they gearing up for?

And to put the ammunition purchases in perspective: that 1.2 billion rounds DHS purchased consists of 750 million rounds of .40 S&W pistol/SMG ammo, and 450 million of it is 5.56 NATO. Lake City Arsenal produces approximately 1.6 billion combined rounds of 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, and .50 BMG ammo per year, and I am going to step out on a limb and say that the vast majority of it is 5.56 NATO—simply because the other two are harder to find on the civilian market, even in normal times, and because it stands to reason that the weapons of individual personnel would be fired more frequently than squad/platoon/company level and up weapons, necessitating higher ammo production numbers for those personal weapons.

So, what does that have to do with DHS? Well, there's different ways of looking at it, but remember that 5.56 NATO is an anti-personnel round...... 450 million rounds of 5.56 NATO can mean a few shooters training to and then maintaining a Special Forces level of operational readiness. It can mean a LOT of shooters training to a minimum level. It can mean that they do not intend to expend it at all, but rather to store it against the day they feel they need to use it. All three are troubling, and asked in order of the previous three sentences.....why would DHS need its own "special forces?" Why would DHS need its own "army?" Why would DHS anticipate the future need of 450 million rounds of anti-personnel ammunition?

We already have a national military, and its charter is well known: national defense against invasion, or prosecution of foreign wars. We already have federal domestic "spec ops" programs like the FBI's HRT. DHS's mandate is not to repel foreign invaders (in fact, by refusing to protect the nation's borders, they are proactively NOT repelling foreign invaders). Why do they need shooters whose mission would duplicate HRT's? What other need could there be? A national police force to operate where state and local police refuse to cooperate with federal crackdowns on gun rights, for instance? Those are the kinds of questions that trouble me. It's not the items themselves being purchased, it is who is doing the buying.

So regarding drones: I can see a perfectly legitimate use of a drone equipped with technology enabling the operator to discern whether a human on the ground is carrying a stick or a rifle........IF that drone belongs to U.S. Forest Service and is used in monitoring hunting on federal lands. And if that degree of sensor resolution is also what it takes for a drone operator to determine if the guy on the ground in a forest is carrying a flashlight instead of a road flare, I'm OK with that. If those sensors are used to determine if the underbrush down below is natural vegetation or an illicit marijuana crop, I'm OK with that. But none of those things are part of DHS's charter.

So it's not WHAT is being purchased (within reasonable limitations) that bothers me, it's WHO is buying it—particularly when it is troubling to consider WHY they would need it. So when a department like DHS, who's primary mission appears to be the strangulation of our travel without harassment, begins buying billions of rounds of ammunition, 2700 MRAPS, thousands of "personal defense rifles" (select-fire M4s), the most sophisticated drones equipped with the same technologies being used in the prosecution of foreign wars to track down and kill terrorists overseas, the OVERALL picture ought to be troubling to any sentient observer.

Alex Jones is a buffoon, and I don't bother reading his website. But I do give thought to DHS, which is a poisonous agency run by a woman with a proven track record of indifference to the rights of the people she allegedly "serves." She's a toad, and toads should not have such resources at their disposal. NO GOOD IS GOING TO COME OF THESE PURCHASES, not because of what they are, but because of who's buying them in apparent contradiction to their agency mandate.

I gotta hand it to you, TAM. You always manage to show me a perspective I didn't consider. I'm gonna have to think on this one a bt more.

One question. I've read that DHS organizes bulk purchases that are then distributed to other agencies. Ostensibly this is to get a better price per unit. Could that be the case here? DHS makes the purchase for items going to the Forrestry Service, FBI, etc, etc?

[VMI77]

Those specifications only mean that they wanted a camera with high enough resolution to see if someone was carrying a long gun... that's a critical part of a wartime mission (for just about any UAS, not just Predators or Reapers... we always report any weapon we see).

As for listening in on cell phones, well, I did that once with a scanner bought on EBay. Cell tracking with a UAS is essentially the same as using towers, only slower, using triangulation.

The article (to me) is a little paranoid. They can't automatically "detect" a weapon, that's up to a trained payload operator and analyst to verify. They also can't see a concealed weapon.

Red: When did the continental US become a war zone? When we talk about the AWB, we talk about the fact that long guns, especially rifles, are rarely used in crime. So just who is likely to be carrying a rifle or a shotgun? Hunters and target shooters. Now,in a place where no one is supposed to be carrying a gun (as TAM speaks to for example), you see someone with a gun, and it's reasonably actionable. But in the US, where the vast majority of people who will be carrying a gun are doing so legally, it seems like the false positives are going to outweigh the real positives by about a million to one. This begs the question then of how this capability is going to be used.

Blue: Seems to me you just admitted violating both federal law Texas law in a public forum. In any case, what you did or didn't do has no relevance to whether the Feds should be using drones with this capability.

[VMI77]

One question. I've read that DHS organizes bulk purchases that are then distributed to other agencies. Ostensibly this is to get a better price per unit. Could that be the case here? DHS makes the purchase for items going to the Forrestry Service, FBI, etc, etc?

Seems like I've read that agencies like NOAA and the Forestry Service have been buying their own ammo. Then again, it's in our MSM, so there is a good chance it could be wrong.