Liars and Bullies

That's my opinion of the Houston, Texas Police Department heads after reading this.

It appears that a local television station found out that the department was going to be secretly testing a new unmanned airborne drone, a Snitch-Bot 2000 if you will. The station was covering the story from a chopper, following all proper laws and regulations, when the HPD started getting all intimidating with the newsies. The following shows how the cops bullied, harassed, and outright lied to the media in order to try to protect their little science project.

Lie No. 1 (All emphases mine):

"Houston police contacted KPRC from the test site, claiming the entire airspace was restricted by the Federal Aviation Administration. Police even threatened action from the FAA if the Local 2 helicopter remained in the area. However, KPRC reported it had already checked with the FAA on numerous occasions and found no flight restrictions around the site, a point conceded by Montalvo."

I'm surprised they didn't threaten to shoot the chopper down, as well. I seem to recall that it's some sort of crime to use the Federal government's name and authority falsely. Can anyone help enlighten me?

Lie No. 2:

"A large number of the officers at the test site were assigned to the department's ticket-writing Radar Task Force. Capt. Tom Runyan insisted they were only there to provide "site security," even though KPRC cameras spotted those officers heavily participating in the test flight."

I guess the traffic cops wanted to use the test drone to provide said security for the test drone, or something circular like that.

Now, on to the more frightening examples of the HPD not caring one whit about the potential for abuse and the overstepping of privacy boundaries with their new toy.

"HPD leaders said they would address privacy and unlawful search questions later."

Doesn't that seem backwards to you? Why not figure out the answers to those questions first, before spending the millions of dollars on the spy system? I'll tell you why: They don't care about "privacy and unlawful search" issues, and they'd rather get their hot little hands on the shiny new equipment first, and fight to keep any unlawfully obtained evidence later. You know, the ol' saw about how it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

One department flack got a little snippy when interviewed, and tried to compare the new aircraft to the newsies' own chopper:

"HPD Assistant Chief Vickie King said of the unmanned aircraft, 'It's interesting that privacy doesn't occur or searches aren't an issue when you have a helicopter pilot over you and it would not be used in airspace other than what our helicopters are used in already.'

She admitted that police helicopters are not equipped with cameras nearly as powerful as the unmanned aircraft, but she downplayed any privacy concerns, saying news helicopters have powerful cameras as well."

Um, Ms. King? It's "interesting" how you're so clueless about the enormous difference between your department and the local Action News Team. News helicopters aren't the government. You are. That's the key difference, because one has Constitutional protections against being snooped on by the authorities, but regretfully, no such barrier exists for the paparazzi, as movie stars find out on a regular basis.

If I were a resident of Houston, I would independently verify the law of gravity, if the local police told me about it.