Chief Reporter
The Engineer
It’s likely that the Google alerts of libertarians yesterday featured the news that police made an arrest using an aerial drone for the first time in the UK.
The Merseyside Police, which is the only force in the country to operate an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), used a thermal imaging camera on their small, remote-controlled drone to spot a suspected car thief through fog.
The suspect, who reportedly fled the stolen vehicle, was hiding in bushes alongside the Leeds-Liverpool canal, probably completely unaware that plumes of heat emitted from his panting body were being detected by the onboard sensors of the UAV overhead.
Such high-tech aerial surveillance has been traditionally reserved for defence operations in areas such as the Middle East and Afghanistan. The Engineer reported as far back as 2007 that UAV developers – unaware of the slightly creepy nature of their spy technology – were eyeing up areas to deploy drones for civilian use. The now successful reapplication for catching criminals on the streets of the UK is something that can be cheered and possibly feared.
It is reassuring the first arrest using a drone helped nab an alleged car thief and not someone guilty of a far less offence such as dropping a sweet wrapper on the street. Yet there are more than a few ‘Big Brother’ alarmists who believe that is still a real possibility.
A much larger demonstration of this technology is predicted to be at the London 2012 Olympics where it is imagined swarms of these drones will be circling above monitoring security.
Who knows if between now and then this will be a common sight. It’s hard to imagine the success in Merseyside could lead to police forces across the UK proposing camera-carrying drones to replace the CCTV ubiquitous on our streets. Yet it may be that UAVs could be deployed to work in tandem with CCTV picking out areas of interest and alerting officials on the ground to take a closer look and zoom in on a scene with a CCTV camera.
It’s a good thing if this helps solve crimes. An internal report from the Metropolitan Police last year admitted that the millions of CCTV cameras in London’s surveillance network rarely help catch criminals. According to the report, less than 1,000 crimes were solved using cameras in 2008.
Will UAVs actually improve crime solving, or will they turn out to be a complete waste of money and a further invasion of our privacy? What do you think about the future of deployment of UAV surveillance technology in the UK? We welcome your comments.
Relax – the first time a drone drops out the sky and lands on someone that’ll be the end of the drones.
Once the health and safety numpties realise there are unmanned aircraft up there, they’ll never get off the ground – ‘too dangerous’ and lost in a fog of ‘what if’s”
If cameras weren’t working in 2008, why are they still being rolled out? Why does our Government, both locally and nationally, have this obsession with watching us? We already suspect the local council of using “security” cameras to co-ordinate their parking wardens. And who watches the watchers?
While it will be widely believed that use of UAV’s for surveillance is invasive, I suspect that Steve is correct and they will be brought down by H&S.
A ‘fog of what ifs’ is also known as no safe failure mode.
I support the ethical use of these drones, they are far easier and cheaper to run than helicoptors although few drones can follow a speeding car. Helecoptors are use at football matches, demonstrations, large concerts etc. so drones would be a far better tool to use in these cases and probaly safer. In reponse to ‘Steve’, if you knew anything about these drones you would know that they are made to be inherently safe with back-up redundant systems, automatic soft landing, return to home, auto pilot etc. etc. Just about the only way they can ‘fall’ out of the sky is if they are shot out of the sky and it’s unlikely that just a bullet will do this (if you’re able to hit it in the first place).
I don’t think there is any such thing as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ technology. If the use of drones can give the police the intelligence they need to catch someone on the run, that’s fine. It is a question of how it is used. I would rather see this targetted surveillance than be put under blanket surveillance by CCTV.
I can imagine another use of drones in the future which surely everybody would agree with. A serious accident on a motorway often results in long delays and queues as the police meticulously record the scene, taking measurements etc. A drone equipped with high-precision recording camers could make multiple passes over the area, allowing the motorway to be quickly re-opened. The well-established technique of photogrammetry would then allow a complete computer reconstruction of the scene for forensic examination.
The use of drones is the effect. The cause is lack of proper policing and poor methods of dealing with and deterring criminals. Drones (purchase and maintenance) will be expensive. The main issue for a lot of people these days is the invisibility of the police. A police officer is a visible deterrent, a drone is not. Witness the countless police videos on the TV showing criminals running from helicopters – they know they are there but it doesn’t stop them commiting crime. Far better to prevent the crime than spend money on catching the criminal using so-called modern technology. Catching a criminal means the crime has already been commited and I thought the whole purpose of reducing crime was to stop the crime occurring (since the days of Sir Robert Peel). A drone will not stop crime.
This drone is about the size of a large toy remote control helicopter, driven by four rotors. I doubt there is much in the way of redundancy built in, but it is no more of a H&S risk than a remote controlled helicopter or other remote controlled toy aircraft.
The real question is, how long will it be before someone makes a controller which can hijack one of these? Or, if the police can get one, who else can get one?
On the positive side, it could be used in many dangerous situations, such as locating people in burning buildings.
Has anyone seen “TERMINATOR”, I`ll say no more.
Well maybe just one thing, this is going to drive the conspirasy nuts into a frenzy bless them.
I’d have it out of the sky with my catapult!
Drones are infinitely preferable to helecopters which are noisy and therefore audibly detectable by the criminal. Silent drones anyday please. As regards the olympics, about 10 large tethered baloons at a suitable height will be sufficient. They could be fitted with suitable detecting devices and used by media camera men as well. This would eliminate the sheer distracting noise of wretched helecopters which spoil so many sporting events.
These are remote controlled, and so rely upon a signal being transmitted over a defined range. How long will it be before the criminals use technology against them, it would not be difficult for someone in the know to develop systems to jam their signals, or just disrupt them so they do not respond.
This has already been reported as happening with some of the US drones operating, and it is cheap and easy to do.
How many criminal organisations will also lock onto them and take control of them, and will then deliberately crash them.
This cannot happen with a helicopter or an aeroplane as the pilot has control of them without outside or third party interference, and certainly not unpredictable remote control units. It has been noted about the numbers of times existing helicopters lose their downlinks, these are again transmitted signals, so if they are losing such basic transmissions with alarming regularity there is a real cause for concern.
And how long before the Press start using them?
I can see it now, swarms of them round Balmoral. On the other hand it would give the pheasants a break as the Royals could shoot at them instead.
Too many people Drone(ing) on again: these are small unmanned AIRCRAFT. As such they are regulated by the CAA with a pramount regard to public safety. By the way the Merseyside Police have been nicked for flying wihout a licence. Well well well.
Picking up the positves: as several people have said there a huge number of Dull Dirty or Dangerous jobs that UAV could carry out more cost effectively and safely than manned aircraft (e.g flying along power lines looking for faults, surveying all kinds of emergencies).
Back to the police and (valid) concerns about excessive surveillance: surely, the Police are the servants of society at large and will ultimatlely do what society requires. It is all down to management in theend