• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

The spy drones that just won’t fly away

Spy drone You may remember that about a month ago, Merseyside Police experienced a topsy-turvy few days when – having paraded their fancy new flying CCTV drone as the latest in crime-fighting technology – the remote-controlled spy plane was then grounded by the Civil Aviation Authority for flying over residential areas without a licence.

Despite this set-back it seems there is no love lost for the technology, and today the Scottish Express is reporting that enthusiasm for spy drones has carried north of the border:

The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) has joined forces with their English counterpart to form the Unmanned Aerial Systems Steering Group, which meets regularly to discuss the use of the planes, and reports to the Home Office.

The drones have already been tested by Strathclyde Police who used one in rescue operations in rural Argyll. Scotland’s largest police force is keen to be at the forefront of the new technology.

This sort of thing must be opposed. Over several years of constant PR and spin, the public has been told that CCTV makes them safer. This latest development – sending unseen spy drones into the sky – must be met with a public backlash or the reach of our surveillance state will continue to extend.

As Alex says in the report, we must have a proper debate about the use of this type of surveillance and its effect on civil liberties before the police start to use these devices.

It may not currently be a hot topic at the forthcoming election, but Big Brother Watch will be keen to make sure airborne CCTV is not forgotten.

By Dylan Sharpe

Posted on March 29, 2010 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCTV, Privacy
  • guy herbert

    That “and reports to the Home Office” is bizarre. As is the whole thing. ACPOS and ACPO are private trade associations for senior police officers and other law-enforcement officials, together forming a steering group to promote use of a technology to the police forces that largely employ their members, and is somehow responsible to the Home Office for doing so.
    Meanwhile the taxpayer is paying half-a-billion a year for the NPIA, which one would have thought might be where new police technology would be studied and driven from.

  • damodavo

    I can’t believe they are simply going to be randomly flown in the hope of catching a burgular wearing a stripey jumper and carrying a ‘swag bag’.
    They will probably be used in the same instances a helicopters are used now, and will be far, far cheaper.
    Can’t see the problem in that case.

  • http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home 1984

    Dear Dylan Sharpe,
    Could you please let me know when Alex will be back from Australia as I now have some more very serious and damning evidence to share with him about airport body scanners.
    He knows who I am.
    Thanks
    1984

  • http://www.angilbertpress.com Michael Bracci

    An argument that I have yet to see on this or any other site is the unethical use of public funds in CCTV campaigns.
    “Over several years of constant PR and spin, the public has been told that CCTV makes them safer.”
    Governments – be they in the UK, Canada or Australia – are increasingly making use of substantial amounts of public funds and civil servants to hammer their electorate with media campaigns, such as this.
    I would question the ethics of any government ramming through such legislation by the sheer power of manipulation…manipulation that comes right out of the public purse.
    Given the consistent evidence that these methods of “crime reduction” are being abused at all levels of government, and they are not, in fact, as effective they are made out to be, one would hope that the “time for change” has come to the surveillance state itself.

  • Bob Morgan

    How do we look to the rest of the world? – I am asked this every day!

  • Stuart

    Whilst the encroachment of CCTV on society is certainly worthy of comment and monitoring, the merits of the opposing arguments for the deployment and use of UAVs in policing must also be considered.
    If used proportionately and appropriately UAVs will be a valuable tool in aerial surveillance (and a much cheaper alternative to a helicopter); whether that be to monitor public order incidents, intelligence gathering in organised crime or searching large areas for a missing person to name but a few uses.
    UAVs must not simply be written off without considering the cost-savings and inherent good that they will bring if suitably used.

  • Purlieu

    Time to buy a catapult

  • Michael Bracci

    Stuart, which police service do you work for?
    You sound like a spokesperson. Just sayin’.
    Even granting your argument, you still haven’t answered the concerns that are being raised on a daily basis – both in the media and in the High Street.
    You are begging the question, anyway. Who decides what is appropriate? Who decides what is proportionate?

  • LeChiffre

    ACPO is driving toward a single police force for England and Wales. Their collaboration with ACPOS means that Scotland will join in: Police nationale, bravo, Aux armes, citoyens.

  • Stuart

    Michael – I agree that CCTV isn’t the be-all-and-end-all and that there needs to be a debate on it’s use.
    With regards to who decides what is proportionate and appropriate, who decides indeed? These decisions are currently dynamic and on a situational basis I would imagine. There has to be accountability but there also has to be provision for the police service to react to a fast paced and emerging threat or operation such as what a UAV might be used in.
    I’m not a police spokesperson – just an interested an engaged citizen. I quite like this site and the valid arguments raised – just trying to suggest a fair and opposing argument :)

  • ZacS

    100 points if anyone can hit one with an air rifle! Bonus points for taking them out in inventive ways, including baiting them through washing lines, prompting crows to mob them, jamming the signal and attacking them with large RC helicopters.

  • http://antipholus.livejournal.com Antipholus Papps

    These decisions are currently dynamic and on a situational basis
    Newspeak alert!

  • Redacted

    The police force should be ashamed. It has sold itself as a tool of corrupt power in return for all the spy toys it has time to play with.

  • Derek

    Highly sophisticated helicopters chasing boy racers, car thieves ( as seen on TV) and now spy drones, whilst our troops are dying daily on foot patrols in Afghanistan due to inadequate surveillance. The IED’s have to be put there by someone !
    How about the MOD contacting the Home Office and using their ,what seems to be endless, money available for public surveillance, to provide protection for our Forces instead ?.