rotard wrote: They're probably not going to be flying overhead all the time; we're not in a war zone and it costs too much. This place is way too big for that anyway. The small ones will probably be deployed in a manner similar to helicopters by law enforcement.
Upgrades to Killer Drone Could Make It Fly for 2 Days Straight
This is the early version that will most definitely be improved. In air durations of months long flights are now being tested.
4cylndrfury wrote:We observe that you are not wearing your government issued aquatic garment while utilizing the personal swimming space on your property. Please clothe yourself in your approved garment, or we will begin mandated deterrence. ...you have 30 seconds to comply
Quick! Run down some stairs!
Humans have done a lousy job of governing themselves. Might as well give the machines a shot at it, so to speak.
fasted58 wrote: If they wanna spy on ya they will A new breed of robot has now entered the field, in military, homeland security, medical, and almost limitless other applications, at the extreme small end of the spectrum: nanomachines, ranging from the size of grains of sand to the size of insects, hummingbirds, and robins.http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/robonano-spies-and-more/
Well, at least one Senator has introduced legislation that limits the use of drones for surveillance.:
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/232489-sen-paul-proposes-bill-protecting-americans-from-drone-surveillance
The apple didn't fall far from the tree.
There should be legislation in place, but I also don't think you need to worry about big brother watching you, in this fashion. It's much easier to monitor your facebook or internet history.
Drones are all well and good for those that trust government to do the right thing.
The "I don't do anything wrong, why should I care" argument is fine......folks brought that up when Habeas Corpus was suspended by our govt. "those are bad people who don't deserve a trial" Sure that works, as long as you aren't the one being persecuted.
But what happens once the precedent to do this has been set, and someone comes into power / office that isn't ethical, or moral. How difficult would it be to spy on a political opponent, or dissident in order to smear them publicly? Even if the subject of the surveillance hasn't done anything wrong, but maybe they let the dog out while they were in their underwear, or stepped outside without their hair done, or make-up on. All of these images could be spread around to make that person look foolish, or not worthy of consideration.
Constant surveillance is fine if you trust the government to do the right thing.....I don't.
Joe Gearin wrote: How difficult would it be to spy on a political opponent, or dissident in order to smear them publicly?
I don't disagree, but it made me LOL. "Hey check out Clinton."
Anyway, satellite imagery is already capable of this. Thats why I'm not worried about drones looking at me in my undies. With FLIR, they could practically see under the undies. 
^^^1+ what Joe said.
What's the big difference between drones and the video cameras we have installed all over the place now? Provided they don't load the drones up with Hellfire missles or similar. It all depends on what the info is used for.
The govt has been snooping long before Bush's warrantless wire taps (which the Big O hasn't dropped). LBJ used to read dossiers on his potential foes (dems, repubs and MLK) in bed.
N Sperlo wrote:Joe Gearin wrote: How difficult would it be to spy on a political opponent, or dissident in order to smear them publicly?I don't disagree, but it made me LOL. "Hey check out Clinton." Anyway, satellite imagery is already capable of this. Thats why I'm not worried about drones looking at me in my undies. With FLIR, they could practically see *under* the undies.
Satellite imagery can't help local law enforcement follow me around in my car because they feel like it. There are only so many in orbit and the use of them is shared by many agencies. The police can operate a fleet of drones as long as they can afford them. You know, those same kind of honorable police that run New Orleans.
RossD wrote: I don't do things that are against the law. This stuff doesn't bother me. In fact, if it keeps me safe, I'm all for it.
Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'
"...the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things."
While the article doesn't go into detail on this point, usually surveillance does nothing to make ordinary people safe. Processing data in real time is a fantasy. It's not going to do anything but potentially help law enforcement figure out what happened after the fact.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:N Sperlo wrote:Satellite imagery can't help local law enforcement follow me around in my car because they feel like it. There are only so many in orbit and the use of them is shared by many agencies. The police can operate a fleet of drones as long as they can afford them. You know, those same kind of honorable police that run New Orleans.Joe Gearin wrote: How difficult would it be to spy on a political opponent, or dissident in order to smear them publicly?I don't disagree, but it made me LOL. "Hey check out Clinton." Anyway, satellite imagery is already capable of this. Thats why I'm not worried about drones looking at me in my undies. With FLIR, they could practically see *under* the undies.
Most local law enforcement probably can't afford these drones. Airport runway, all that great stuff.
What bugs me out about this is Embry-Riddle University wants to be the go-to source when it comes to developing these drones. As Riddle is here in the Daytona area, I can see testing taking place all over our area. You may not mind the police looking into your backyard, but how about a college kid?
http://www.news-journalonline.com/breakingnews/2012/05/area-could-become-one-of-only-six-test-sites-for-civilian-drones.html
I also think funding for these drones would come from the Federal govt. I don't see local municipalities footing the bill for "Homeland Security" devices. Many of these drones take off like helicopters.....no need for a runway.
My tinfoil hat protects me from Drone surveillance and attacks
Joe Gearin wrote: What bugs me out about this is Embry-Riddle University wants to be the go-to source when it comes to developing these drones. As Riddle is here in the Daytona area, I can see testing taking place all over our area. You may not mind the police looking into your backyard, but how about a college kid?
I know several people at University of Alabama Huntsville working antonymous flying drones.
I know I'm not the only one thinking this. 
<img src="
" />
I think that people are uncomfortable with it because they realize that it is wrong. The Authorities in Germany liked them. They just needed a little more work on the guidance and cameras.
There's a big difference between an observation drone and a V-1 buzz bomb.
stuart in mn wrote: There's a big difference between an observation drone and a V-1 buzz bomb.
The amount of explosive on board.
We have used aircraft for surveillance in this country for years without making national headlines. Police helicopters, aerial drug enforcement, border patrol, even the interstate by me has a big sign that says "speed limit enforced by aircraft". If you think all of those uses of aircraft are evil, fine, I won't debate any of that. Or if you are a member of a pilot's union. But for the rest of us: what's the difference? A drone is just an aircraft without a pilot on board.
Jamesc2123 wrote: We have used aircraft for surveillance in this country for years without making national headlines. Police helicopters, aerial drug enforcement, border patrol, even the interstate by me has a big sign that says "speed limit enforced by aircraft". If you think all of those uses of aircraft are evil, fine, I won't debate any of that. Or if you are a member of a pilot's union. But for the rest of us: what's the difference? A drone is just an aircraft without a pilot on board.
That was the original question. Why are drones creepier than manned aircraft? See original thread title :)
I have no problems with UAVs if I can bounce a laser off of them and watch them crash.
I do have problems with people seeing what I have on my property. I don't care if you're a nosy neighbor or a machine, you have no reason to see what I have. I have nothing to hide, so go away. No, you may not take a look, unless you have a warrant. If your a nosy neighbor, you're more than welcome to get bent.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:RossD wrote: I don't do things that are against the law. This stuff doesn't bother me. In fact, if it keeps me safe, I'm all for it.It is good that you are a law abiding citizen. I hope the people who make the laws always act in your best interests.
When did they start doing that?
Derick Freese wrote: I do have problems with people seeing what I have on my property. I don't care if you're a nosy neighbor or a machine, you have no reason to see what I have. I have nothing to hide, so go away. No, you may not take a look, unless you have a warrant. If your a nosy neighbor, you're more than welcome to get bent.
I feel the same, but I'm not really worried. I'll grow some trees.
You'll need to log in to post.
