Slashdot Mirror
Unmanned Aerial Drones Coming Soon Above U.S.
cnet-declan writes "Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been flying over Iraq and Afghanistan, but now the Bush administration wants to use them for domestic surveillance. A top Homeland Security official told Congress today, according to this CNET News.com article, that: "We need additional technology to supplement manned aircraft surveillance and current ground assets to ensure more effective monitoring of United States territory." One county in North Carolina is already using UAVs to monitor public gatherings. But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers? A pilot's association is worried."
Boil a frog slowly...
My new sig seems even more appropriate than usual.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
First it was the domestic wiretap issue; the administration not only didn't deny doing it, they flat-out flaunted it. Now they want to put unmanned drones in the air to watch God-knows-what. There's no longer even a pretense, a facade, even the slightest attempt to hide the surveillance society.
I thought that actions like appropriating the military for civilian law enforcement, spying on US citizens within the US, etc. were illegal. Why doesn't anyone seem to give a shit anymore?
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
We can't control our own borders but we will use tech like this to monitor our own citizens...
Anyone else find that just a little weird?
Nobody in America gives a shit for several reasons.
The first is the same bread-and-circuses problem that plagued the Roman Empire. As long as they have beer and football, Mountain Dew and XBox, or their cell phones and MTV, most Americans are quite content.
The second is a lousy mass media. Many people who might take a stand against anti-freedom activities such as this aren't even aware of the issue, just because it isn't reported well by major news outlets.
The third is a lack of understanding. Low-quality history lessons in schools, often teaching what amounts to idealistic propaganda, have resulted in many youths (and now adults) not even being able to comprehend the issues at hand. They are unaware of how such 'security' measures were the hallmarks of numerous totalitarian regimes, just in the 20th century alone.
It's a multifaceted problem, and no solution is readily available.
The US is made of thousands upon thousands of immigrant. Very few of us are native. The current political and powers that be want everyone watched 24x7. It's scary to think that we'd spy on our own citizens just to protect them. But if we allow such things as domestic USVs, what's next? Tracking chips implanted in everyone? I don't know where this is all headed, but there are some crazy politicians and military forces out there that think they should play god to their own citizens. In times like these, we need to consider the repercussions of our actions. I hate to see this ever happen on American soil.
Give me a productive error over a boring, mundane and unproductive fact any day. ~Anon
I wish Orwell's 1984 was required to be taught and discussed to death in citizenship classes in high school. What most people don't seem to understand is that 1984 is not really about "big brother" but instead it foretells what Orwell deeply distrusted: a global information system and the abuse of it. In a way Orwell was a pessimist - he knew that no matter how well intentioned any system would be abused. UAV's are a symptom of Orwell's fears, they are just more information inputs into a global database. By themselves it's almost silly to complain about them but in aggregate with other databases the whole becomes dangerous to liberty. Everyone has broken some law somewhere and if that information is easily looked up it makes everyone susceptible to blackmail - who did you have an affair with last year? There was an old soviet joke about having laws against everything so if the KGB wanted you they would simply selectively enforce any law they wanted to against you. What citizens should demand to combat Orwell's dystopia is transparency in the process' and records of their government. Yes some things do need to be classified but they are usually the exception and not the rule. And no matter how classified everything should eventually become known.
;) :)
Anyway, I'm too drunk to continue so please correct and extend what I've said. Goodnight.
Shh.
Everybody is blinded by the media and by schools. Teachers are threatened by the government, and are forced to spread the propaganda to our children, and it is even starting to happen in Universities. Patriotism is being turned into extremism. History teachers and professors know about it, people who read the news from free media outlets such as this one know about it, but the masses cannot even fathom the idea that our government is corrupt and are fixated into this mindset that if a superior (President, Media, Retail Salesman) tells them something, that they must obey and follow. Any out-speak or saying different to them is seen as uncivilized and outrageous.
Sig: I stole this sig.
We've got little time left before the borders completely close.
There are only two choice at this point in my opinion:
1) Openly take back the government by hook or by crook. This is costly in life, money, and security but has been shown by other people of the world to work.
or
2) Leave the country until it collapses or someone cleans it up. Depending on how you look at it this could be construed as an abandonment of one's responsibilities as a US citizen but those of you with family and small children, like me, should seriously think about what kind of country they are going to grow up in. If they can't defend themselves then you have to move them elsewhere.
This is one of those times I wish I hadn't been right to wear my tinfoil. I wish I could see a path to be able to remove it. But I don't see that in my lifetime especially if these things get worse as I suspect they will.
In my opinion this is one step before the wall.
(Why isn't this article in the YRO section?)
I await the inevitable mod down by those that think I'm OT, Troll, Overrated, or Flamebait...
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Somewhere between 99.999% and 99.99999999% of the terrorists (call it an educated guess, based on the number of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks that have occurred in this country since 9-11) are outside this country -- probably in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran -- and we're spending serious effort on domestic surveillance?
What this says to me is that the Bush administration is fscking terrified that the tall grass is full of terrorists, and that we have zero resources capable of dealing with them in their own space (the CIA having been preoccupied with telling the boss what he wants to hear), and have so pissed off our former friends who might actually have some field intelligence, but would now prefer to see us twist in the wind, making an excellent target to draw out the terrorists.
Actually, that last bit doesn't hold water, 'cause plenty of European nations have been hit since 9-11. If anyone had any field intelligence, it would be used.
But why aren't we deploying surveillance drones over Saudi Arabia, or at least Pakistan? And we certainly ought to have every pile of rubble with a roof over it in Afghanistan bugged.
But this continued insistence on domestic surveillance looks for all the world as if the Bush administration is on the side of the terrorists, or is at least gearing up to declare martial law and replace our broken, wobbly charicature of a representative democracy with a theocratic monarchy.
Either that, or they're just incredibly, unbelievably inept.
Shouldn't be a problem for who?
Are they armed? How long until they are?
Your interpretation is incorrect. Most airspace is class E -- which is controlled airspace -- but airspace designations are primarily about visibility minimums and communications requirements, and have little bearing on flight plan or instrument flight status. Classes D, C, and B are all associated with areas in and around airports, with increasing requirements for communications (D,C, and B all require communications with the airport tower, C requires transponder, and B requires transponder and permission to enter the airspace.) So today, even the most restricted airspace (B) you can fly over without a flight plan.
So unless most airspace is declared class B, it's not really an issue. I really don't think the FAA / ATC want to deal with the millions of clearance requests, etc they'd encounter if they did something so drastic.
What's more likely is that they'll swiss-cheese the airspace with temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) around areas where the drones operate. Presumably they could become so numerous as to make private flight planning a bit difficult. Before then, however, there will probably be enough crashes with drones to result in them be forced into small saftey zones. If the Predator is any indication, there will be many, many crashes as UAVs get used more extensively -- which would totally undermine any safety-selling approach that might be tried.
"I don't see these measures as an infringement on personal freedom, because the measures will target people I don't like."
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Israel does not have the Bill of Rights. It does have borders completely surrounded by hostile neighbors, including daily rocket attacks and suicide bombs, many originating within its territory.
Israel has lots of unamerican "problems", like a state religion and the draft. We don't want those things here.
--
make install -not war
-You don't need to melt a truss, you just need to soften it. If it softens the geometry changes and the strength drops.
-I don't know what the ends were on the floor trusses, but a sagging truss will put them in tension. I doubt they were designed for this.
-Heat shielding doesn't stand up too well to an exploding airplane.
-The design in question is not typical of steel buildings, which tend to be latticed structures rather than tubes.
Note that it's the floor collapsing that starts the process. A load-bearing exoskeleton is an inherently unstable design prevented from buckling only by the floors forcing it to stay aligned.
As you say, no warping was observed before collapse. It was the internal structure that failed before the collapse. As soon as the external structure drifted out of alignment it was over. Instantaneously. This is how buckling behaves.
(Oh, and this guy isn't much of a scientist. "Nobody has a good idea what happened. IT MUST HAVE BEEN THERMITE!" Typical crackpot paper . . . . . . )
(Science aside, how the hell could a deliberate demolition be pulled off without anyone finding out before or finding actual evidence after? Such things take rather a lot of setup to pull off.)
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Take for example, the latest Downing Street memo. It revealed that prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush thought the evidence of WMD was so weak that he suggested tricking Iraq into firing on a U-2 spyplane painted with UN colors. Wingnuts like Confederate Yankee dismissed the memo as nonsense, primarily on the grounds that you wouldn't be able to see the plane at it's operation altitude from the ground. That's a Bigfoot moment, because the fact that U-2's fly at 70,000 does nothing to debunk the idea that "putting food on our families" Bush wouldn't have hatched the scheme in the first place.
It mentions the federal government is only interested in using this to replace existing flights by manned aircraft at over 12,500 feet, with filed flight plans. This is your own local officials doing this backyard surveillance, not "the big evil Bush" that everyone seems to like to blame for everything. But MAN does throwing "the Bush administraion" in the summary really catch eyeballs, regardless of whether it's true or not.
More "Bigfoot" nonsense. Dismissing the involvment of the Bush Administration by talking about locals in this is like trying to claim that the Administration and the GOP majority in Congress didn't have anything to do with the Patriot Act because it is used & abused by local law enforcement. And you conviniently ignored the quote that was in the summary: "A top Homeland Security official told Congress today..."
This might be news to you, but the Dept of Homeland Security is part of the Executive Branch, headed by a Cabinent-level official, with all top level officials either being directly appointed by Bush or appointed by appointees of Bush, which makes it part of the......drumroll please....Bush administration.
*sigh* Typical slashdot.
No, typical kneejerk defense by what appears to be a member of the Church of Bush. There have been many times when you guys end up falling all over yourselves in the rush to defend our dear president, only to be proven wrong later. See the Katrina video or the Downing Street memos, for example. And that's just what's filtered out through a stonewalling GOP government. If the Dem's have the balls to actually go out and win the Senate or the House AND investigate the White House, the shit is really going to hit the fan.
Bush is draging this country down, and guys like you are helping him.
Ah, but if you've been paying attention the past few years, the FAA and the major airlines seem hellbent on removing general aviation from the US altogether (closing non-airline airports, insisting on implementing per request fees for ATC, trying to ground all aircraft built before the last few decades. And don't get me started on the stupidity of every major city wanting a Washington D.C. style Air Defense Identificaton Zone). I suspect having nothing flying anywhere near the ground except governemnt controled drones would suit them just fine.
What's more likely is that they'll swiss-cheese the airspace with temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) around areas where the drones operate. Presumably they could become so numerous as to make private flight planning a bit difficult.Or they'll just make private flying illegal.
- "They looked like controlled demolitions"...but what is the basis for comparison? How many people repeating this line have ever witnessed or even seen video of an *uncontrolled* demolition of a skyscraper--other than the WTC buildings? In other words the visual similarity is TRUE, however it is not necessarily UNEXPECTED. ALL demolitions of tall buildings will look similar, regardless of how they are initiated. Even if you blow out one side first, the building won't tip over like a coat rack. Remove support and the mass being supported falls--straight down.
n ter_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building _Locations.jpg
- The buildings did not fall neatly into their footprints. Look at this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Ce
- There were thousands of people in the buildings that day. The first attack took place around 9am--after many people had arrived at work. In fact the estimate is that at least 10,000 people were in WTC 1 and 2 when the first plane hit. They had arrived by subway, walking, cab, and driving--some had parked in the garage. They proceeded through the building that morning as normal. After the first hit, most of them evacuated safely--almost everyone below the point of impact in both buildings. YET not one of them has come forward with stories of seeing the building pillars in the parking garage wrapped with drums and det wire. No one had stories of elaborately laid wire harnesses throughout the floors of the building. Not that morning or any morning previous.
Wiring a building for controlled demolition is not a quick thing. It takes a long time to load in the explosives and wire it all up safely and reliably. And it's not something easily hidden. It's hard to bring down buildings like the WTC-- a big truck bomb won't do it. You have to distribute a lot of explosive around a lot of the support structure and set it all off in just the right sequence. It would probably be impossible to hide, especially in a building like the WTC towers, where the outer shell carries so much of the weight.
Yes, the firefighters heard noises that sounded like explosions. But I'm not interested in hearsay--I want to hear from the people who eye-witnessed demolition charges and equipment set that morning. Until then I'm not buying it.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Most American patriots that tend to be revered today seem, when looked at a bit more objectively and in comparison to the rest of their society, to be dangerous free-thinking radicals. A number of important ones had religious ideas (i.e. deism) that were far from the majority (either then or today). They met in small groups and supported armed rebellion against the state or disruptive civil disobedience of various forms. They used the media of their time to disagree vehemently with the established order often through the use of self-publishing (dare I make an obvious blogging comparison?).
In the end they developed a largely new system of government that vastly differed from what else was around at the time and put a great deal of emphasis on limiting the powers of the government in favor of personal rights (note how the Bill of Rights largely makes use of negative rights by stating that "Congress shall make no law restricting the right of foo" rather than explicitly guaranteeing that right).
These are people that would be (rather rightly I think) seen as dissidents, potentially dangerous seperatists, and enemies of the state. It's quite likely that the average American would fear and distrust them if they were acting today.
Perhaps their biggest flaw was that, like most idealists, they assumed that people were as deeply passionate about these things as they were. That they cared strongly about injustice and the abuse of power and were willing to act on it.
They weren't patriots because they supported the current government. They were patriots because they didn't.
I know they had something like this in Orwelles 1984, I guess it just took us a little longer.
At this point, Bush should probably just go for broke and insert RFIDs into everyone scalp. I don't think he's gong to stop until this is implimented. So go for it. Hopefully we'll have sufficient liberal backlash to bring the country back into line with reality. At this rate we'll surpass most police states in a decade. I'm not exactly a liberal or a conservative, but this stuff is getting out of hand.
I'm quite impressed with this Slashdot article, not because of TFA, nor because of its content.
But I am surprised how many of you realize the problems that your society is having (Yes, I am adressing US citizens). We, in Europe, often speak about those issues of freedom being taken away in the name of a so-called War on Terror, and we see the same roots of the problem, being the media providing bread-and-games distraction, partial/idealistic education and other things.
But, I have come to realize, we unfairly generalize the US citizens, as if all of you didn't realize what's going on. But then, I see stuff like Sorry Everybody, and I am reminded that lots of you don't like the system either. And most of the comments on this article (which have been modded up) express an understanding of what is going wrong.
People - you have to do something!. I am not in the position to be lecturing you (since I am but a 19-year-old German student), but I wonder how come that so many of you see the problems, and yet Nothing Ever Happens. I wonder if it is because there's no way for the "extraparliamentary opposition" (read up on the German one) to express itself, or because there simply is no movement which unites people who feel like you do, and like I do, too. What I see is a great potential for protest, but only in places like Slashdot does it become aparent.
There really is no important bottom line to this. It's what I perceive and what I wonder about.
Let's be careful that we don't overstate this issue. Saying unmanned reconnaisance is unconstitutional is not accurate. There is no difference constitutionally between manned aircraft and unmanned.
The angst here is against the Bush administration's policies, not unmanned drones.
Arguing the wrong point weakens the real discussion.
An important change for education.
Apparently taking over somebody's homeland will piss some people off. Who knew?
How exactly is increased surveillance when you are in a public place an infringement on your personal freedoms?
Are you joking? OK, one example off the top of my head. There are plenty more.
You are in an unfamiliar neighborhood. You pull over and waive someone down and ask for directions. He comes up to your car and you ask him for directions to the hotel. He points and gives you directions and you drive off.
That man later turns out to be a terrorist or drug dealer.
Now, thanks to ubiquitous surveilance, you are on videotape associating with a terrorist. This information can and will be taken out of context and used against you if, say you ever run for office or are accused of a minor crime.
UAVs are something we're going to have to get used to. Up next: pilotless passenger planes. Most modern aircraft are already equipped with auto-takeoff, auto-pilot (cruise), and auto-land. What more do you need? The ability to control them from the ground? That's being worked on for security reasons.
That's a terrible idea, especially if you think it will improve security. Quite the opposite. All you need is one terrorist hacker to break into the system and grab control. Then instead of an attack by four planes you have every plane in the air becoming a weapon and/or target at the same time.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.