"No Drones" at Berkeley City Council

Berkeley has a “partnership” with Homeland Security, which is not likely to respect a local drone moratorium. In December DHS took over McKinley Avenue in Berkeley and put the residents under lockdown. This is their M.O:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/18/when-the-robo-cops-came-to-berkeley/

>
>
> Establishing a Two Year Moratorium on Drones in Berkeley
>
> From: Peace and Justice Commission
>
> Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution adopting a two year moratorium on drones in Berkeley.
>
> Financial Implications: Unknown
> Action: 11 speakers. M/S/C (Bates/Maio) to: 1) adopt a one-year moratorium on the use of unmanned aircraft systems, or “drones” by the Berkeley Police Department, 2) ask the Council to develop a policy for police use of drones, and 3) to authorize the use of drones by the Berkeley Fire Department for disaster response purposes. Vote: Ayes – Maio, Moore, Anderson, Arreguin, Capitelli, Wengraf, Bates; Noes – Droste; Abstain – Worthington.
>
As you can see, Kriss Worthington abstained from this vote. He did so because he was not convinced that this was better than nothing. It is NOT what I/we asked for.
Council has sat on its hands and done nothing to craft a drone policy, even after numerous recommendations sitting in its lap since December, 2012. So the Peace and Justice Commission, frustrated with Council's inaction, wrote to Council in June of last year and recommended that while they are figuring out whether to have a "No Drone Zone" or crafting a "Drone Policy for Berkeley", that it pass the new recommendation of a "Two Year Moratorium on Drones". Not only did they make it a One year moratorium, but they actually AUTHORIZED the use of drones by the Fire Dept. and said they would work on developing a policy FOR Police use of drones.
We asked for NO DRONES, NO Police drones. They ignored the request to ask the legislature for a Two Year Moratorium for the state of California. They ignored our request for no evidence gathered by drones eligible for introduction into criminal investigations in state and federal courts absent a valid warrant based on probable cause and no weaponized drones. The last word from the police department was that it had not thought about getting a drone. The fire department also has never shown an interest in having one. Hopefully, if they do get one, they won't lend it to any other department. Having written the "No Drone Zone" resolution, "A Drone Policy for the City of Berkeley", and the "Two Year Moratorium on Drones In Berkeley", I do not believe that one can say that what the Council passed on Tuesday evening is better than nothing. It sounds good if you read the headline "Berkeley Passes Moratorium on Drones" but it is almost meaningless if you read the fine print details. The Two Year Moratorium as recommended by the Commission, would have been a band-aid on a potentially critical wound, while Council took time to craft a comprehensive policy. It is not too late. The FAA's proposed new regulations that came out at the beginning of last week, do not protect privacy. The time for cities to take a stand is still now, before the sky is flooded with drones. It will only get more difficult to regulate them as more drones fill the sky and the feds implement new regulations. The action by Council is disappointing and certainly is one more reason for people to think about whether it is worth their time to go to government meetings, even in Berkeley, rather than spend their time working for nonviolent anarchist revolution, whether or not we see it in our lifetimes. Let's see if Council bothers to begin work on a comprehensive drone policy for Berkeley, as it promised it would do at its Worksession on Drones last April. One Councilmember said to me, after the Council meeting, that without pressure from people on Council, to do so, it won't happen.