drones drones everywhere

[smoothoperator]

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=CbKTIYTe7DI[/youtube]

[The Annoyed Man]

There's going to come a day when a popular underground sport will be that of trying to bring down surveillance drones with a McMillan TAC .50.

[speedsix]

...anybody here old enough to remember hanging bead chains from the mudflaps or rear bumper to "ground out the radar" so it couldn't detect your car??? try the 60s...

[MadMonkey]

There's going to come a day when a popular underground sport will be that of trying to bring down surveillance drones with a McMillan TAC .50.

This is the other thing. Just about every time I've been in a UAV discussion I've seen comments like this... I'm sure none of us would blow up a police car or vandalize a bomb squad robot, but there's a careless attitude about downing a UAV which is another expensive piece of equipment, the shooting down of which could cause injuries or even deaths on the ground.

Nothing against you, TAM, but it just seems like there's a severe lack of mature discussion, and instead there's just a rehashing of old arguments against Big Brother and thinking that every drone is going to be used to spy on regular citizens.

I'd like to hear real, legitimate fears/concerns/dislikes about UAVs instead of catchall terms. I haven't been in the industry long and I'm not well-versed in the laws, but I've been a UAV fan for years so maybe I can answer questions.



After all....


....I'm from the government, and I'm here to help

(actually I'm a contractor, but whatever)

[speedsix]

...the OP set the tone with his humorous post...maybe if you have a different idea it'd be worth your starting another thread...
...using the word "mature" around us is kinda like saying "old aged men"...I'm so mature I'm in my second childhood...

[The Annoyed Man]

There's going to come a day when a popular underground sport will be that of trying to bring down surveillance drones with a McMillan TAC .50.

This is the other thing. Just about every time I've been in a UAV discussion I've seen comments like this... I'm sure none of us would blow up a police car or vandalize a bomb squad robot, but there's a careless attitude about downing a UAV which is another expensive piece of equipment, the shooting down of which could cause injuries or even deaths on the ground.

Nothing against you, TAM, but it just seems like there's a severe lack of mature discussion, and instead there's just a rehashing of old arguments against Big Brother and thinking that every drone is going to be used to spy on regular citizens.

I'd like to hear real, legitimate fears/concerns/dislikes about UAVs instead of catchall terms. I haven't been in the industry long and I'm not well-versed in the laws, but I've been a UAV fan for years so maybe I can answer questions.



After all....


....I'm from the government, and I'm here to help

(actually I'm a contractor, but whatever)

I don't ask this to be disrespectful, but how old are you? I ask, because I remember a time when the government didn't spy on its citizens from the air—including with helicopters. I remember a time when it didn't post cameras on buildings and sign poles to spy on its citizens. I suspect that some of our younger members don't remember such a time. Allow me to explain my frame of reference to this kind of stuff.....

I absolutely have no problem with the use of drones in the prosecution of the WOT.........overseas. IIRC, you fly drones in Afghanistan? Good for you. The more drones can be used to rain Hellfire missiles down on Al Qaeda targets; the more drones can be used to spy across the Iranian border, the better. But when it comes to using them inside our borders in a civilian law enforcement application, I have serious problems with it. There is only one exception to that which I believe to be acceptable, and that is the use of drones in patrolling our borders—but only in outlying areas where the manpower is spread too thin.

I don't have a problem with helicopter assets being launched when there is a need to help pursue a fleeing felon on foot, to direct ground units during a high speed chase, etc. If "lauching" means deploying an air asset that has been kept on an airborne station until it is needed, fine. But when an air asset is being used as a patrol vehicle, peering down into PRIVATE property to which there would be no access from the street without permission from the owner...then HECK YES I have a problem with that. It used to be that law enforcement had to have just cause to invade your privacy—but invading it "because I was flying over it" is NOT just cause. If there is a foot pursuit on, and the perp bails over my back fence and runs across my back yard, and a helicopter or drone tracks him from the air, that's fine. But such an asset has absolutely no constitutionally justifiable reason for loitering in the air above my neighborhood and spying into neighborhood back yards, just as a standard procedure. It doesn't matter that I have nothing to hide. And of course, the very fact that such hardware exists in law enforcement inventory is temptation to find ways to use it, including ways that stretch the bounds of acceptability, because the budgetary justifications for having these toys in the first place have to be affirmed. If you dont' believe that temptation exists, then I suggest reading up on KYLLO V. UNITED STATES. Now, Kyllo was guilty as hades. But, the case rested on whether or not law enforcement had the right to "intrude" on a home without a warrant, using technology beyond normal observation. Law enforcement used thermal imaging to spy on the inside of his house, to determine if he was growing marijuana inside. In its decision, the court said:

Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

I submit that drones enable law enforcement to explore details of a private home (a completely fenced in yard is private) that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion. I also predict that it is merely a matter of time before the use of a drone in a criminal case gets the evidence obtained by that means excluded from trial on a Kyllo precedence.

There comes a point when the job of law enforcement should not be made any easier. I say this will all due respect to those who serve now or have served in that capacity. The reason I say this is that good law enforcement is a heavy responsibility. I want LEOs to be well paid for that responsibility, and well trained in how to observe it. If the responsibility is made too easy, then the temptation to step beyond the legitimate boundaries of propriety becomes too easy. This isn't necessarily a reflection on the individual LEO, although in certain jurisdictions that are poorly managed, it could be. Rather, it is a reflection on the characteristics of institutional inertia. Once an institutional ball is nudged to begin rolling in a certain direction, it is mighty hard to get it to either stop, or change direction. It is better to simply NOT nudge it into motion in the first place.

When Suzanna Gratia Hupp said the following, she was describing exactly the kind of government that not only has the urge, but feels justified in spying on its citizenry:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

This government, particularly lately, acts as though we need to be "lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." I am probably 30 years older than you are. I remember a time when privacy as a concept was sacrosanct. The meaning of "get a warrant" had some real teeth to it. In my own case, I've got nothing to hide. I don't engage in illegal activities. I believe that good fences make good neighbors. One of the things I've learned on my spiritual journey is to recognize and respect boundaries. That is not something our government does anymore—recognize and respect boundaries. The idea of having drones patrolling the air over our streets is proof of that lack of respect.

As hard as a cop's job is, I don't want him ever be able to get around having to knock on someone's door and asking permission to check out their back yard. As long as LEOs understand that they must ask for permission, and that if permission is not granted, then they may not enter, then they are forced, institutionally, to provide legitimate reasons for needing to go back there. Air surveillance of someone's back yard circumvents that need, violating the property holder's privacy without due process. We are either subject to the rule of law, or the rule of men. As long as the constitutional respect for privacy is preserved, we continue to live under the rule of law. When a cop knocks on the door, asks permission to invade my back yard without cause, and when he is refused he simply calls an air asset to snoop back there for him, then we live under the rule of men, and the Constitution and the law have no more meaning. And I am not an unreasonable man. If a cop knocks on my door and asks if he can check out my back yard, I ask him why, and he tells me they are looking for a burglar on the run, I'm going to gladly let him go back there. But he has to give me a legitimate reason. If he says "somebody says you're growing pot back there," I'm going to ask to see his warrant. I'm NOT growing any pot back there....that I know of.....but I'm not going to swear on a stack of Bibles that some bird flying over didn't poop out a marijuana seed in my back yard that I don't know anything about. You see, the Constitution says I have rights. Law enforcement doesn't get to violate them by default, and then apologize later if they were wrong. The default position is that they have to behave within its constraints.......just like I do.

I know these drones are expensive. It's my taxes that are helping to buy them. You can bet I know they are pricey. But when drones start invading the privacy of citizens without due cause, even though I said it jokingly, I'll bet that you will see people—particularly in rural areas—start taking pot shots at them. So, that was a long winded explanation, but do you now understand how I could be at the same time appreciative for what it is you do, and a bit angry about the misuse of what you do by people who have nothing to do with you personally?

Peace.

[MadMonkey]

I don't ask this to be disrespectful, but how old are you?

I'm 28, and I don't even like Google Streetview looking at my house (though I'll admit it has saved me some time tracking down specific homes and businesses).

I absolutely have no problem with the use of drones in the prosecution of the WOT.........overseas. IIRC, you fly drones in Afghanistan? Good for you. The more drones can be used to rain Hellfire missiles down on Al Qaeda targets; the more drones can be used to spy across the Iranian border, the better. But when it comes to using them inside our borders in a civilian law enforcement application, I have serious problems with it. There is only one exception to that which I believe to be acceptable, and that is the use of drones in patrolling our borders—but only in outlying areas where the manpower is spread too thin.

Then fight against law enforcement using them! Honestly, I'd prefer they didn't use them except as helicopter replacements or even less. High speed chase? Sure. Assisting in a foot pursuit? Sure.

However, think about it from this angle... what kind of UAV could actually be used as a PATROL unit? I think what most people see when they hear the term "Drone" is a Predator or Reaper, which range from $3.5-11 million each and require a vast amount of support equipment, a long runway, expensive ground stations and such, and they still only have 8-20 hours of endurance. They're entirely impractical for police departments to use. What is more likely (in my opinion) is a cheap VTOL aircraft, electric or gas, which is going to have very limited range and endurance... which to me means that while I'm sure they'd fly it when nothing is going on, it would be far more likely to be used in "legitimate" applications that we'll both agree on.

But when an air asset is being used as a patrol vehicle, peering down into PRIVATE property to which there would be no access from the street without permission from the owner...then HECK YES I have a problem with that. It used to be that law enforcement had to have just cause to invade your privacy—but invading it "because I was flying over it" is NOT just cause. If there is a foot pursuit on, and the perp bails over my back fence and runs across my back yard, and a helicopter or drone tracks him from the air, that's fine. But such an asset has absolutely no constitutionally justifiable reason for loitering in the air above my neighborhood and spying into neighborhood back yards, just as a standard procedure. It doesn't matter that I have nothing to hide. And of course, the very fact that such hardware exists in law enforcement inventory is temptation to find ways to use it, including ways that stretch the bounds of acceptability, because the budgetary justifications for having these toys in the first place have to be affirmed. If you dont' believe that temptation exists, then I suggest reading up on KYLLO V. UNITED STATES. Now, Kyllo was guilty as hades. But, the case rested on whether or not law enforcement had the right to "intrude" on a home without a warrant, using technology beyond normal observation. Law enforcement used thermal imaging to spy on the inside of his house, to determine if he was growing marijuana inside. In its decision, the court said:

Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

I submit that drones enable law enforcement to explore details of a private home (a completely fenced in yard is private) that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion. I also predict that it is merely a matter of time before the use of a drone in a criminal case gets the evidence obtained by that means excluded from trial on a Kyllo precedence.

Again, fight against it. Raise support for our cause (I don't want to be spied on either). But UAVs are coming to our skies one way or the other... the applications are what we can have a say in. If you don't want law enforcement to be using them, make your voice heard!

As I've said, every piece of technology stands ready to be abused. It's up to the people to limit it... if we can't, then we have bigger problems.

There comes a point when the job of law enforcement should not be made any easier. I say this will all due respect to those who serve now or have served in that capacity. The reason I say this is that good law enforcement is a heavy responsibility. I want LEOs to be well paid for that responsibility, and well trained in how to observe it. If the responsibility is made too easy, then the temptation to step beyond the legitimate boundaries of propriety becomes too easy. This isn't necessarily a reflection on the individual LEO, although in certain jurisdictions that are poorly managed, it could be. Rather, it is a reflection on the characteristics of institutional inertia. Once an institutional ball is nudged to begin rolling in a certain direction, it is mighty hard to get it to either stop, or change direction. It is better to simply NOT nudge it into motion in the first place.

Law enforcement doesn't have to be given this capability. Did you see the list of applications that I already posted?

Either way, I believe it would be a long time before people will accept UAVs over highly populated areas, such as DFW, as long as they're informed. Reliability will have to improve, for one thing... a VTOL falling out of the sky is easily capable of putting a hole in a house (or a head). I don't know what Arlington is planning with theirs, I'll have to look into it.

When Suzanna Gratia Hupp said the following, she was describing exactly the kind of government that not only has the urge, but feels justified in spying on its citizenry:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

This government, particularly lately, acts as though we need to be "lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." I am probably 30 years older than you are. I remember a time when privacy as a concept was sacrosanct. The meaning of "get a warrant" had some real teeth to it. In my own case, I've got nothing to hide. I don't engage in illegal activities. I believe that good fences make good neighbors. One of the things I've learned on my spiritual journey is to recognize and respect boundaries. That is not something our government does anymore—recognize and respect boundaries. The idea of having drones patrolling the air over our streets is proof of that lack of respect.

I can already look on Google Maps and see my backyard. Not in real time obviously, but I can see the layout, whether I have a pool, an outdoor dog, vehicles parked outside, etc. I don't like that fact. However, a criminal can peek over the top of the fence and see it. A news (or police) chopper that happens to be flying over can see it. I hate that fact, but the fact remains that a backyard doesn't have a cover, and the Wright Brothers ruined it for all of us.

As hard as a cop's job is, I don't want him ever be able to get around having to knock on someone's door and asking permission to check out their back yard. As long as LEOs understand that they must ask for permission, and that if permission is not granted, then they may not enter, then they are forced, institutionally, to provide legitimate reasons for needing to go back there. Air surveillance of someone's back yard circumvents that need, violating the property holder's privacy without due process. We are either subject to the rule of law, or the rule of men. As long as the constitutional respect for privacy is preserved, we continue to live under the rule of law. When a cop knocks on the door, asks permission to invade my back yard without cause, and when he is refused he simply calls an air asset to snoop back there for him, then we live under the rule of men, and the Constitution and the law have no more meaning.

Then make sure that there are laws in place to prevent them from sending a UAV over your house without a warrant. It's our responsibility to make our concerns known and to fight for our rights. I don't want a plane snooping all over a city for no reason either, but it's going to eventually happen if nobody speaks up.

I know these drones are expensive. It's my taxes that are helping to buy them. You can bet I know they are pricey. But when drones start invading the privacy of citizens without due cause, even though I said it jokingly, I'll bet that you will see people—particularly in rural areas—start taking pot shots at them. So, that was a long winded explanation, but do you now understand how I could be at the same time appreciative for what it is you do, and a bit angry about the misuse of what you do by people who have nothing to do with you personally?

Peace.

I know what you mean. I also know you'd be extremely lucky to see, much less hit, a UAV at 6,000' above your property.

However, I think anger about misuse is a little misguided as there hasn't actually been any misuse to speak of (except on the case of PDs using UAVs illegally, which were shut down in a hurry).

All in all, this is what I think.

No PDs have active-duty UAVs yet but as soon as they're cleared for their use, they'll be in the air. Montgomery County and Arlington, I know, already have some ready to roll and have been training with them. If you don't want them to be used in your area, the time to make that known is NOW. I'm still waiting to hear what a mess they'll make of jurisdiction issues.

Secondly, it's not the UAV's fault. It's a tool just like any other. The people who use that tool are the ones who are responsible; most PDs claim that the aircraft will be used for specific missions, and I believe them... at this point. But in the future, it will be easy to expand that to "patrol", so we have to keep a careful watch on that. My biggest concern is traffic enforcement and such.

Sorry for the disjointed reply, I'm tired

I think you have valid concerns, really. But instead of focusing on the planes, I'd focus on making sure people are informed about them and that if they have a concern about privacy, they need to speak up. Like it or not, unmanned aircraft are going to replace a lot of manned ones. But whether they're used for law enforcement or government surveillance is up to us, and as I said before, if we can't stop them from doing that then we have much bigger problems.

[ajwakeboarder]

I don't know much about UAVs, but i'm an ATC student. I'm wondering what flight rules these things operate under. If they operate under VFR, It could be hard for VFR pilots to see and avoid them due to their size. It they operate under IFR, it's gonna be a pain in the behind from a Air traffic controller's perspective. How would they communicate, What kind of weather conditions do they fly in, How do you give them clearance into certain airspaces, etc.

[MadMonkey]

I'm wondering what flight rules these things operate under. If they operate under VFR, It could be hard for VFR pilots to see and avoid them due to their size. It they operate under IFR, it's gonna be a pain in the behind from a Air traffic controller's perspective. How would they communicate, What kind of weather conditions do they fly in, How do you give them clearance into certain airspaces, etc.

Collision avoidance is the biggest issue right now as there is no real "automatic" system in place to keep planes from colliding. Plenty are being tested, but to my knowledge none are actually in use.

As for flight rules, we're in contact with ATC and carry a transponder, and are capable of doing whatever they tell us. I'm sure UAVs will be flying IFR in controlled airspace. In uncontrolled, if they do NOT come up with a collision avoidance system , they're still going to be using anticollision lights and regular communication so other pilots will be aware of their location. I have no idea what the actual regulations will be since even the FAA isn't sure Actual VFR flight would be tough since a UAV operator won't have the situational awareness that a regular pilot will have. I know that for about 95% of the flying I do, I have no idea what is going on in front of the plane... we're looking at the ground most of the time. I'll periodically have my payload guy check the weather or look for icing on the wings if that's a factor, but other than that I'm relying on my autopilot interface to see where I am and what I'm doing.

Some UAVs are capable of flying in bad weather, and some can't fly in any moisture at all. It depends on the system. Clearance, over here at least, is given in keypads and altitudes... we actually have the option to set up the aircraft to *terminate* (use your imagination) if it strays into a ROZ. That might not be practical over Dallas though

My assumption is that if law enforcement does end up using UAVs over the cities, they will have specific blocks of restricted airspace that they can utilize, ESPECIALLY in an area with multiple busy airports like DFW. The consequences for busting airspace in close proximity to a major airport would probably be pretty severe, as well... especially by an unmanned aircraft.

[Liberty]

I figure that the pilot of a helicopter is less likely to take shortcuts with safety when his life is on the line than the operator of a drone when the only lives that are stake are the subjects on the ground. There are LEOs that may not value the lives and safety of "civilians" as much as they do themselves or the "brotherhood". Safety almost always takes on more importance when you have some skin in the game.

Pilots that I have met met are the most paranoid folk I have ever known. I just don't believe that we get the same level concern with a UAV operator.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think you have valid concerns, really. But instead of focusing on the planes, I'd focus on making sure people are informed about them and that if they have a concern about privacy, they need to speak up. Like it or not, unmanned aircraft are going to replace a lot of manned ones. But whether they're used for law enforcement or government surveillance is up to us, and as I said before, if we can't stop them from doing that then we have much bigger problems.

I understand that UAVs are not in widespread use in the LEO role. It isn't the technology itself that makes me angry; it is that there are people in positions of authority who have to be told not to abuse it that makes me angry. The PDs using UAVs illegally and having to be shut down.....that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. The officials in question proved categorically unable to simply do. the. right. thing.

I must have missed your earlier post referencing applications and different kinds of equipment. I apologize for that. Like I said though, to me it isn't about the technology, it's about the use of it. Radioactive isotopes have all kinds of marvelous high-tech uses, but it's wrong to use them to poison your political opponents. Air assets, manned or unmanned, big or small, man-portable or not, have their place in civilian law enforcement. I can easily see where a SWAT unit could legitimately use a small, man-portable rotor powered UAV to get a bearing on the location and disposition of a barricaded suspect, for instance. But given the potential uses of all kinds of technologies which were mere pipe-dreams not that long ago, as well as for the new potential of abuse those technologies afford, I agree with you that it is wise for us as citizens to hold law enforcement accountable for how they're used.

Unfortunately, we have an increasingly unresponsive government which acts as if its only accountability is to itself. Therefore, we are always going to be behind the eight ball on this, playing catch up to agencies that lacked the moral center to do the right thing when faced with the temptations presented by all of their wonderful toys..........instead of being able to trust that they would do the right thing, simply because it is right.

[MadMonkey]

I think we're agreeing on most points then Unfortunately most people tend to attack the technology rather than how it's utilized.

Everything being said, I'm extremely excited to see how things are going to change.

By the way, in regards to the comment about UAV pilots being less safe... I work for one of about three large UAV companies left that hire based on RC and technical experience rather than requiring you to be a full-scale pilot. The vast majority require at least SOME sort of full-scale aviation experience; flying a Predator or Reaper requires a commercial license, for example. Will the pilots be more capable of goofing off while sitting on their butts on the ground? Absolutely, which is why navigation, airspace and collision avoidance are going to be critical... plus as I said before, a UAV pilot isn't going to have the SA that a regular pilot will.

I have a feeling that to fill the enormous number of jobs, a standardized licensing program will be put into place and training will be similar to general aviation even for smaller projects. Anything commercial will probably require a new type of commercial pilot's license. We'll see if there are fewer crop duster pilot deaths in 20 years, though I have a feeling those guys will be adamantly against anything that doesn't put them in the cockpit

It'll be a while till the majority of the kinks are worked out. Hopefully I'll be done with this gig in late 2013 and can rest for a year or so before jumping into a stateside development job I'm most interested in the more exotic applications, but if all else fails I'll join the Arlington PD and be your inside guy

[VMI77]

There's going to come a day when a popular underground sport will be that of trying to bring down surveillance drones with a McMillan TAC .50.

This is the other thing. Just about every time I've been in a UAV discussion I've seen comments like this... I'm sure none of us would blow up a police car or vandalize a bomb squad robot, but there's a careless attitude about downing a UAV which is another expensive piece of equipment, the shooting down of which could cause injuries or even deaths on the ground.

Nothing against you, TAM, but it just seems like there's a severe lack of mature discussion, and instead there's just a rehashing of old arguments against Big Brother and thinking that every drone is going to be used to spy on regular citizens.

I'd like to hear real, legitimate fears/concerns/dislikes about UAVs instead of catchall terms. I haven't been in the industry long and I'm not well-versed in the laws, but I've been a UAV fan for years so maybe I can answer questions.



After all....


....I'm from the government, and I'm here to help

(actually I'm a contractor, but whatever)

No one I've heard complain is talking about the many legitimate and useful drone applications you're talking about. The government is already monitoring everything you do on the internet. It's hardly a secret....it's been testified to in Federal Court, and DHS is now openly talking about how they monitor social networks. The FBI has published pamphlets that call out just about anything anyone does as suspicious activity.

Obviously, they're not looking at everyone in real time, but they're collecting the data and can backtrack through it. The surveillance monitoring and coordination problems you allude to are already being overcome....I've seen videos of drone swarms, and we're very near a system that can do wholesale monitoring. Drones are getting smaller and cheaper. No, they won't be able to track everyone in real time, but they'll be able to look back at the movements of nearly everyone post collection, and at many thousands of targeted individuals in near real time, and make connections between all their social contacts. Right now they can already track thousands of targeted individuals in real time. This would be a problem even in a country with an honest government with benign intentions, because such a total surveillance system is ripe for abuses by rogue individuals --and we don't have an honest government with benign intentions.

[Liberty]

The carnage has begun: http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group ... 3ce6c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An animal rights group sent up a cheapy drone to spy on a pigeon shoot, it apparantly got mistaken for a pigeon.

[RoyGBiv]

Where is the outrage?
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Published June 07, 2012
FoxNews.com

I like the Judge and respect his Constitutional opinion as well as his libertarian interpretations.

Worth reading the whole article...
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... s-outrage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don't believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the "recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them "to collect information about U.S. persons.”

Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or "military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And, any "incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What's next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?