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."

Comments

Well you know that old saying

[bogie]

Boil a frog slowly...

My new sig seems even more appropriate than usual.

"Security" makes it all OK?

[Motherfucking Shit]

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?

Re:"Security" makes it all OK?

[Espressoman]

Well from the perspective of most people outside the U.S.A., Americans seem to be happy with a powerful, corrupt government controlled by corporate and military interests. You voted one of those space monkeys from the 60's in as President, and seem to be a country to be utterly sucked in by the lies you are told, no matter how laughable they are.

Your take on democracy is a joke, and you don't seem to care while your over-inflated military launches illegal invasions against countries with oil or strategic significance. Your secret service and other agencies and corporations prop up dictators while it suites them (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the Teliban), giving them power, sophisticated weapons of mass destruction (missiles, illegal armaments, fighter jets), all while turning a blind eye to their various crimes (genocide, drug trafficking, torture, etc.), and of course giving them lots and lots of money.

You don't care about corruption at home (e.g. Florida vote rigging), you don't care about inaction at home (e.g. New Orleans), you don't care that you have a completely insane attitude to firearms (everybody should have one (which the rest of the world sees as ludicrous)), drugs (the war on drugs can be won, all pot smokers are criminals, drug abuse is a disease (for crying out loud)), etc., etc.), and you actually voted in George W. Bush. Is that guy really the very best example of humanity you could find to be your surpreme leader?

To the rest of the Western world, and then some, the U.S. is a country of lazy, fat, stupid, nut jobs who are too pathetic to question their leaders, question their government, or question the U.S. democratic system which keeps things as bad as they are. You are quite simply hopeless. All (a very few of) you do is winge and wonder how your rights could be slowly ebbing away and why nobody cares. Well *YOU* don't care, or you'd be protesting in the streets, you'd be throwing down your governement, you'd be routing out corruption, you'd curtail the corporations who would otherwise bleed the world dry for the sake of their shareholders' greed.

Shouldn't be a problem?!?

[babbling]

Shouldn't be a problem for who?

Are they armed? How long until they are?

Re:Closing down of airspace

[mercuryresearch]

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.

Parent post summarized in one sentence:

[mcc]

"I don't see these measures as an infringement on personal freedom, because the measures will target people I don't like."

Re:Israel does this already...

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:There are a number of reasons, actually.

[Secret Rabbit]

Now then if we look at restrictions put on people in the United States, United Kingdom, or Canada during the American Civil War, First and Second World Wars and compare those restrictions to what is happening during this Global War on Terror, you'll see that the reaction now is much less invasive than it was during those conflicts.

You seem to be missing a point. That point being that the first 3 wars that you mentioned actually had goals that were achievable. The latter does have achievable goals. Or are you so naive to think that a "war on terrorism" can actually be won?

You also seem to be justifying an erosion of freedoms as ok and something that'll be returned after the conflict ends. Well since this war cannot be won, those freedoms will never return.

For that matter, what justifies this increase in surveillance? Are there operatives about everywhere? Must we fear everyone?

If we all remember the Simpsons episode (paraphrase):
Lisa: I have a rock. It keeps bears away.
Homer: How do I know this rock works.
Lisa: Do you see any bears around?
Momer: I'll give you $10 for it.
Lise: Dad, it doesn't really work.
Homer: $20!

Thus the administration is keeping everyone safe from the terrorists. Because do you see any of them around. Let's just keep letting them do whatever they want.

Re:SUAVs

[Tassach]

They can't outlaw Cheney's own sport

Silly peasant. Don't you realize that the law doesn't apply to you if you're well-connected or filthy rich?