DHS drones detect if you are armed or not

[VMI77]

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.

It's troubling, and I'd submit, becoming obvious. I think the MRAPs sort of seal the deal. Mine resistant armored vehicles with gun ports? IED's and land mines a big problem for US LE? Lot's of small unit combat where armored vehicles are under siege? At the very best, they're afraid of something. At the worst, they're either planning something or acquiring capability in advance of planning.

[MadMonkey]

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 don't disagree, I think DHS is a very dangerous (though potentially bumbling) organization, even based on the name. I'm just trying to keep some of the paranoia about my area of (limited) knowledge somewhat grounded in reality

If I ever get back to the States we need to have lunch again!

ETA: VM177, statute of limitations

The rest of my statement explains the point I'm trying to get across... the requirements are simply calling for a quality camera system. A surveillance UAV is pointless if you can't tell what you're looking at.

Don't forget that Border Patrol is a child agency of DHS and that B-model Predators are already patrolling the border... personally, I don't have an issue with the aircraft having good enough cameras to let the agents on the ground know if they'll be dealing with armed folks.

[BigGuy]

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).

I remembered this link from a few months back.
NYPD Commissioner says department will begin testing a new high-tech device that scans for concealed weapons
The only thing I know about this tech is what is in this article. If they get it to work, you can bet it will soon be standard load out on surveillance drones. The idea of that type of scanner anywhere, much more so on a drone, is disconcerting. Pretty well does away with concealed carry for those with access to this equipment.

[VMI77]

ETA: VM177, statute of limitations

The rest of my statement explains the point I'm trying to get across... the requirements are simply calling for a quality camera system. A surveillance UAV is pointless if you can't tell what you're looking at.

Don't forget that Border Patrol is a child agency of DHS and that B-model Predators are already patrolling the border... personally, I don't have an issue with the aircraft having good enough cameras to let the agents on the ground know if they'll be dealing with armed folks.

As TAM says, it depends on the use. For example, I think it's reasonable for the BP to have this capability. I think it's reasonable for the BP to have MRAPs stationed along the southern border. I see the point in weapons detection in a war zone where the ROE allow you to take out armed individuals. It's a little harder for me to see the use domestically. So, a drone sees me carrying a rifle on my property? What then? If no one comes to check me out, what has it accomplished? And if someone does, there goes my right to act legally on my own property without interference. What value is added for law enforcement? Knowing if someone has a rifle or a shotgun won't tell them whether or not the person is armed, so to interdict the person for whatever reason they'd still have to get close enough that they could still get shot at, which means they should be assuming the person is armed whether the drone can detect it or not.

I think the first use of the detection capability could be enforcement of an AWB, if one passes, and enforcement in those states where one has passed. The drone spots someone with a banned weapon and tracks him for apprehension by the authorities. If so, there will be a lot of false positives and a lot of harassment from LE --though perhaps not in a few states like Texas and Wyoming.

[MadMonkey]

^ I'm waiting to see if DHS actually starts flying UAVs for domestic surveillance. I don't really see it happening unless they really twist the whole domestic terrorist thing. It could happen though, I'll give you that. But in the event it does happen, there are still options ;)

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).

I remembered this link from a few months back.
NYPD Commissioner says department will begin testing a new high-tech device that scans for concealed weapons
The only thing I know about this tech is what is in this article. If they get it to work, you can bet it will soon be standard load out on surveillance drones. The idea of that type of scanner anywhere, much more so on a drone, is disconcerting. Pretty well does away with concealed carry for those with access to this equipment.

The problem with that is that those scanners are reading natural radiation and looking for something blocking it (basically the "shadow" of the weapon). That would be hugely impractical from an aircraft, which would be looking downward on a subject... even at close range with a ground based scanner, it could be difficult to tell if it's an LCP or a cell phone.

[sawdust]

All of this is partly my fault. I'm sorry. I apologize. I couldn't possibly know it would lead to this. Many years ago in the Navy, I was heavily involved in what was possibly the first operationally deployed drone weapons system. It could drop things that go "BOOM". It had surveillance capabilbilties, and it had rescue capabilities. If I had known what it was going to lead to, I would have crashed more of them.

[JALLEN]

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.

This used to be quite common with cheap radio Shack scanners that covered cell phone frequencies and a bunch more. I used to listen to cell phone conversations just about every night, 35 years ago when cell phone first started becoming ubiquitous. The most common conversations heard were (1) between drug dealers, and (2) married men sneaking out to buy cigarettes and calling their girlfriends.

AFAIK, that is impossible, or at least many times more difficult these days as the cell phones have gone digital, and are encrypted, unless you have the unlock codes.

I believe it is unlawful to reveal radio transmissions not intended for you, but not to hear them. If that is what they want, let them keep them out of my backyard.

[VMI77]

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.

This used to be quite common with cheap radio Shack scanners that covered cell phone frequencies and a bunch more. I used to listen to cell phone conversations just about every night, 35 years ago when cell phone first started becoming ubiquitous. The most common conversations heard were (1) between drug dealers, and (2) married men sneaking out to buy cigarettes and calling their girlfriends.

AFAIK, that is impossible, or at least many times more difficult these days as the cell phones have gone digital, and are encrypted, unless you have the unlock codes.

I believe it is unlawful to reveal radio transmissions not intended for you, but not to hear them. If that is what they want, let them keep them out of my backyard.

Lots of sites just say that listening in to someone else's cell phone conversation is illegal. But in checking more closely that claim could be over simplified. The Feds did apparently ban devices capable of intercepting cell phone calls from being imported into the US. However, in one of the more restrictive States, California, the law apparently saws that the monitoring must have malicious intent to be illegal. Recording is definitely illegal....listening....not sure.