The San Jose Police Department (SJPD) is doing
the pseudo-apology boogie this week in hopes that the hounding from
transparency advocate Shawn Musgrave will finally stop. What are
they so sorry for? That they got caught. They repeatedly dodged
records requests about buying or even planning to buy a camera
equipped-drone.
Or, as they
put it:
In hindsight, SJPD should have done a better job of
communicating the purpose and acquisition of the [unmanned aircraft
systems] device to our community. The community should have the
opportunity to provide feedback, ask questions, and express their
concerns before we move forward with this project. To this end, we
will first develop a community outreach plan before we take steps
to deploy the UAS.
How thoughtful. How the SJPD has changed its tune, too.
Until last month, they were telling Musgrave, who has been
chronicling the saga on Vice and the FOIA blog MuckRock,
that they didn’t have no stinkin’ drone and didn’t know a thing
about them.
It started back in December 2012, when “an analyst within
the SJPD Research and Development Unit specifically responded
that the department had no records regarding research into
drones or plans to use unmanned aerial vehicles.”
In fact, Musgrave later determined that they must have
already submitted their proposal to acquire one a month
prior.
And, although the city of San Jose received over $400,000
from the Department of Homeland Security, “including $8,000 to
purchase a drone for [SJPD’s] bomb squad” in May 2013, they dodged
another records request that October,
replying that
Our Department does not use aerial drones, remotely
piloted vehicles (RPVs), remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs), unmanned
aerials (UAs), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and/or unmanned
aerial systems (UASs), nor does our Fiscal Unit have any records
related to these items
The upkeepers of the law got their 1.5 pound hexacopter in
January 2014, but it wasn’t until July 15, when Musgrave compiled
so much damning evidence of his own and information extracted from
an American Civil Liberties Union request, that the cops
acknowledged the purchase.
Even after all this, though, they can’t keep their story
straight. Their apology says that they they have no intention of
using the drone until consulting with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
That may be true, but it contradicts the department’s line of
thought up until that point. From an internal memo within the
department: “The UAV is not a drone. Drones are regulated by the
FAA. The FAA doesn’t regulate our device.” Musgrave notes that
while the FAA has been pretty opaque about what people can and
can’t do with their remote-controlled flying things, “in this case,
the FAA
has long made clear that all government agencies require
authorization to operate an unmanned aerial vehicle in domestic
airspace, regardless of the particular body type or where the unit
was purchased.” Well, uh, that’s awkward.
Read about more MuckRock FOIA work
here.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1okyElv
via IFTTT