fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

Submit A Story

Miami Beach Police bust out the blimp to get around surveillance drone ban

by 5 Comments

Law in Florida forbids the police to use drones for surveillance of citizens. However, it seems that Miami Beach police have found a legal loophole. Instead of a drone, they use a miniature blimp with a camera attached to it.

 

The blimp is a helium-filled device with a camera gimbal attached to its underside. It’s called a “tethered aerostat,” and according to Miami New Times, the police department tested it a while ago, and has recently decided to buy it. Reportedly, the police used a similar device during Memorial Day Weekend in 2017. During spring break of 2018, they began testing the current blimp, and did it again on Halloween same year, before ultimately deciding to buy it.

Miami New Times reports that city Manager Jimmy Morales sent a letter to the city’s commission on 3 January 2019. The letter admits that the police bought the blimp to get around the state’s drone surveillance ban.

“As crowds at major events here in the city have increased in size over the years, and given the emergence of new threats of terrorism seen around the world in such large gatherings, the department sought to acquire a new technological solution for aerial monitoring.”

Morales added that the blimp provides “an ideal vantage point in an unobtrusive manner, with a sleek, yet friendly look.”

Of course, the public raised the question of law violation. Are the police basically breaking the law by using this aircraft for surveillance? MBPD spokesperson Ernesto Rodriguez doesn’t think so. “This is new technology, it’s smart tech, and it’s safe tech that we’re using to keep folks safe during large events,” he said.

According to The Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act which bans the police from using surveillance drones, a “drone” is any powered, aerial vehicle that:

  1. Does not carry a human operator;
  2. Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
  3. Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
  4. Can be expendable or recoverable; and
  5. Can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload.

To be honest, I don’t really see too many differences between a camera drone and a blimp, except that the blimp is tethered. They’re named differently, though. So, linguistically speaking, the police are not using a drone and thus not violating the ban. But interestingly enough, website BlimpWorks.com refers to blimps as “lighter-than-air drones.”

Personally, I wouldn’t have anything against police surveillance during major events, for safety reasons. Accidents, terrorist attacks, and murders in large crowds happen all over the world. However, I do have a problem with the police finding a legal loophole. If they’re eligible to do it without consequences, does it mean that everyone is?

[via FStoppers; Miami New Times]

Related posts:

Colorado Introduces “Right to Record” Bill Punishing Police Officers Interfering With Photographers Man uses drone to catch cheating wife Mining company loses 9 surveillance drones – because of eagles Woman claims her surveillance camera caught a spying drone. Others think it’s spider’s web
  • J. Rebelo

    A blimp does not meet #2 in the list, as it flies (“floats”) in the atmosphere because it’s less dense than the air.

  • Dan C.

    The blimp doesn’t meet the definition of drone on points 2 & 3. It’s using its lighter-than-air property to provide lift not “aerodynamic forces” (aerodynamic – of or having a shape which reduces the drag from air moving past). And because it’s tethered, it can’t fly autonomously. Therefore, not a drone by the above definition.

  • JOhn C

    So, the state passes a law with the spirit being to limit surveillance. The police decide to do everything in their power to circumvent the spirit of the law so they can surveille the people the are sworn to protect. Let that sink in, they have decided that they can use technicalities to infringe on our right to privacy. They have no respect for citizens, they are in control.

    • Rick

      The law says nothing of the sort. If you had read the statute this law is intended to prevent the use of drones for spying on individuals where they have reasonable expectation of privacy.

      b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.

      I truly question why the author of this article included the statute yet failed to read it as it directly relates to research on the article.

  • blokeinusa

    if they use an RC plane or RC helicopter, then it’s ok, bc it’s not called a drone….

Recent Posts