Slashdot Mirror
Airships to Patrol Venezuela's Skies
bprime writes "The BBC reports that officials in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, have bought three airship UAVs to keep tabs on the local populace. From the article: 'The 15 metre (49 foot) long air ships are emblazoned with government slogans. Written in bright red are the words, We watch over you for your security.' They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
And I thought that I was in a rational century without totalitarian governments that have the capabilities to do things like this.
Isn't this out of some SCI-Fi movie?
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
All your rights and freedoms are belong to us!
Have EVDO, will travel.
...and it'll be accurate.
At leat the blimps won't make as much noise as the police helicopters over much of LA in the night.
Here's my guess: Better not be until after the repeal of the Second Amendment.
New Socialist government, airships with slogans. The Venezuelans wanted this guy in power, so they got what they wanted.
Something has happened elsewhere in the world. But how long until someone uses it to criticize Bush?
Hmmm...
The Venezuelan government buys 15 meter long airships for surveillance.
The city of Caracas has the "worlds worst figures for gun death".
So, taking a bit of a leap [jump with me if you wish]... The government of Venezuela is providing expensive 15 meter long floating targets for the people of Caracas to shoot at instead of shooting at each other...
You know, it just might be crazy enough to work...
I'm Venezuelan, and didn't know anything until I read it here... Anyway, like almost everything that this government does, it's pretty sure that this will be used more for political/social control than crime prevention. And I can see the "control room" dismantled in a few months, all of the equipment broken/stolen and the ships rusting...
They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
First of all, why try to make this into some kind of "America bad" diatribe? Does everything have to end up connecting with the supposed lost liberties in America? This has nothing to with the US.
Next, it already has happened in America at least once that I'm aware of. There was a Fuji blimp in the air 24/7 over NY during the Republican National Convention in 2004. Rumor had it that it was there for security, both against terrorism and all the protesters that were trying to "brownshirt" the convention.
Finally, how is this any different than all the cameras on every street corner in cities like London?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
it's already there. The first time I saw this I was sure it's some kind of pro-privacy ad, but apparently it's dead serious :(
*- Insert your favorite totalitarian government style
Let's just hope that Koopa's not involved this time...
I left my wallet in El Sigundo!
COPS: Caracas
A high speed chase featuring an airship tracking and a donkey powered wood cart through a shanty-town.
There are rather more worrisome things about Venezualan police than their use of UAVs.
In the US of A, advertising slogans would be far more likely.
The LAPD is already trying to use UAV's in Los Angeles. The only thing holding them up is a squabble with the FAA.
n ded-disciplinary-action-possible/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/22/l-a-drone-grou
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Reminds me of an Aqua Teen Hunger Force (ATHF) scene where Shake is "The Drizzle." I'm paraphrasing here:
Master Shake: I can summon rainclouds to rain out the crime
Meatwad: Right, so then they go inside and rob banks and kill people.
Master Shake: Yeah, they could do that...
There's a misplaced 'y' at the beginning of the 2nd last word, but we shouldn't come down too hard on them for it. It's something a spell checker wouldn't catch.
Loose lips lose spit.
Britain in particular hasn't a leg to stand on when it comes to offering a critical view of others' domestic surveillance.
Ehmm... This is to be used in Caracas, where the most "politically inestable" factors are the mid-class citizens angry with the government, and the poverty-belts citizens surrounding the others. All of them may be armed, but none of them have SAMs or Stingers AFAIK.
I never realized before that the medeivals had included video cameras in the ornamentation on the steeples of Westminster Abbey.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Never.
Naw. As soon as a major city has a big enough RICO siezure to buy 'em.
Helicopters cost a LOT to operate. They spend over an hour in the shop for every hour in the air. They MUST be maintained because there are a LOT of moving parts that are single points of failure - most involving a crash if they fail.
Airships can be very redundant and even if they crash they tend to do so gently (unless you paint them with thermite and fill them with hydrogen).
It's easy for police departments to buy big ticket items with RICO money. But their ongoing upkeep has to keep paying off, so it helps to keep that low.
Helicopters are good for point work - like assisting chases or patrolling highways during rush hour. But for ongoing surveillance they're expensive. And noisy, which tends to heisenberg ongoing crime out of their view.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Ah, but this time it's done by teh t0talitar14n g0vernm3nt of commun1st ch4vezz!!one!!!! See?? there's no privacy in venezuela!!!
I still think this sucks, but I'm getting tired of this kind of "we're the civilized world, the light, people that have different socioeconomic/politic views than us are obviously wrong, so they must have come to power by force, they're terrorists/dictators/communists/liberals (which are of course all the same), and therefore inherently evil" bullshit.
(sorry, I'm having a bad day)
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
But there is more:
Caracas is no HappyLand. It has a high crime rate, just like Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (that by the way has its own surveillance blimp too). Surveillance is necessary, no, condition sine qua non to allow common people to live their lives without fear to be shot by a pair of Nike shoes (happens a lot in some Brazilian cities, just so you know). That's the situation is most Latin America.
Now, is not it hypocritical that 1) this is BBC reporting, coming straight from the country with the most ubiquitous surveillance system in the world 2) people are so desperate to find something to nail Hugo Chavez for that they need to resort to such FUD because they got nothing else. This is a move by the City of Caracas, not the country of Venezuela, just like the blimps on U.S. are a move from the NYPD, not the Federal Government.
Now stop talking about things you guys don't know about, and quit spreading fud. Come on, "keeping tab on the population".
It also helps to avoid the wake turbulence of the preceding aircraft.
An airplane generates a pair of trailing vortices from the wing tips as an unavoidable consequence of producing lift. These are like a stretched out smoke ring - through the wings, back through the air on both sides, to where the wings were when it took off - although they don't stay in place forever.
The vortices expand and move slowly downward, until they are dissipated on the ground below the flight path - providing a slight overpressure that transfers the weight of the passing aircraft to the ground under its flight path.
Meanwhile the concentrated spinning tubes of air are a real problem for any following plane until they've had a chance to spread out and sink.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If it crashes, they'll all say:
oh, la humanidad!
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
It isn't just a petty squabble with the FAA that is keeping UAVs out of civil airspace. There are major legislative hurdles to overcome before government bodies can even get CLOSE to flying UAVs, let alone over populated areas. The military has an extremely difficult time getting COAs to fly their own equipment around, what makes you think that some police department is going to get away with it? Sure, you might think that the legislation will just get pushed through. You clearly underestimate the power of the AOPA and their lobbying skills.
The FAA puts up one hell of a fight to fly a proven, safe UAV *FIVE MILES* from a municipal airport in the middle of nowhere Kansas to a restricted airspace controlled by the military and not the DoD. Sorry, there is no "eye in the sky" coming for us anytime soon.
Just a little fact check considering all the bullshit I see .
Noam Chomsky made a very interesting point,as he usually does: public trust in governments, as measured through opinion polls, is going down worldwide, and particularly accross america.
Guess where it's currently the highest? That's right, Venezuela.
CNN and other corporate US medias -- including Associated Press! -- call Chavez a dictator. It's the word they use in headline, litterally, no exageration on my part. That's hilariously, if not completely revolting, libellous. Chavez was democratically elected and re-elected, his numbers going UP from one election to the next. They've been validated by international organisations, including Pdt. Carter's organisation. Compare this Florida '00 for good measure.
Carter's organisation vetted the elections.
Their results are also surprisingly consistent with independtly performed polls and exit pollings -- unlike in the US of A! Remember 2004? That wasn't long ago.
Plus Venezuelian voting machines (that's bad) are Open Source (that's good). Unlike Diebold's.
Except, you know, when the sky behind you is blotted out by a huge lumbering airship for hours on end.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
So she believed that the ends justified the means.
In the US, the government has tremendous power, so it is a smart idea to keep tabs on it to make sure it doesn't grab more than it already has. But when you live in an environment where criminals and terrorists run the show, your most obvious threat isn't the government. It's the people who are stealing, killing, and terrorizing.
Fujimori obviously isn't going to go down in history as a promoter of the rule of law. But paradoxically he seems to have paved the way for the rule of law by wiping out the Sendaro Luminoso.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
As far as I'm aware, most of the "video cameras placed in urban areas" are privately owned and in no way linked to the government. And the "automated telecom snooping" is used only for calls to or from other countries, right?
I just find it interesting that people are so eager to blow out of proportion any surveillance program in a free, progressive nation like the US, while downplaying much worse measures in Venezuela - a country which shows every sign of descending into a Cuba-like dictatorship. Ofcourse, this is, ironically enough, probably a product of the advanced nature of US surveillance. When people aren't able to clearly see the governments attempts to control and observe them, they retreat into their own little fantasy world of conspiracy theories and black helicopters. It's quite possible that if the US were more public about it's programs, it would actually receive less criticism.
And yes, the most interesting thing for me too was the combination of surveillance and crude propaganda. Definitely reminiscent of "1984".
We fight them there or we fight them here?
While it makes for a nice soundbite, it's a complete delusion.
So going over there and fucking with them somehow stops them from coming over here? Are you serious? On the flip side, you're saying if we totally leave them alone, they'll just come over here for the hell of it? Oh yes, the tired old line "they hate our freedoms", right? They are still human, basic human nature is "Don't fuck with me, I won't fuck with you." So I don't buy your argument.
What's to stop them from sneaking over here while we're fighting over there? Not much. How many people come through the Mexican border every day? Think the boogeyman terrorists can't make it through there too? Oh, wait, we're fighting them 'over there', so we're all safe here.
Terrorism knows no boundaries, yet we need to fight them over 'there'? I thought it didn't know any boundaries.
We fight them there? What, all disgruntled religious freaks have suddenly moved to Iraq? Well hell, that's nice and overly simplistic. Is the set of 'terrorists' fully encapsulated by 'Iraq'? No? Hmmmm... So not all terrorists are Iraqi? So are all terrorists Arabic? No? Hmmmm.... So all Terrorists are Muslim? No? Hmmm... So all terrorists are human and live on Earth? Yes?
Oh shit! They're here!! They're everywhere? Shit shit shit! Let's run in circles and panic! Agggghhhh! The boogeyman is gonna get me. HolyFuckingShit!
Was that guy in at Virgina Tech an Iraqi? Arabic? Muslim? Human? Well then why didn't our fighting 'over there', stop him from killing 32 people 'over here'? Oh, that's right, you are talking out of your ass, blindly parroting bullshit feel-good nonsense you heard on TV, again, aren't you?
It gives me a migraine headache, thinking down to your level. (In the words of the great prophet, Dave Mustaine)
What you fail to realize is that crime is used to coerce people into giving
up their rights. So they let crime run rampant and terrorize the populace
until the people cry out against it and then they move in with the solution.
Your classic Hegel at work here: Problem -> Reaction -> Solution.
Crime keeps the populace in line and provides fodder for inmate labor programs.
If it didn't occur naturally, governments would have invented it. What
they all do is sow crime until they can harvest another crackdown on
it. Btw I wouldn't be at all surprised if scumbag Fujimori didn't own a
couple of hundred acres of coca plantation.
...allegedly, has the top two political parties conspire to not only not include any other candidates on the forum for the so called national and official presidential debate, but actually threatens them with arrest if they have tickets and try to just sit in the audience-I'd call that a dog and pony show. And when the controlled lapdog press goes along with it, another part of the show. When two cooperating parties basically hijack the government and just divide the spoils, and it is clear both of these parties have full compliments of crooks, thieves, liars, bribe takers and assorted scum, yet nothing substantial happens overall, that's a dog and pony show. When both parties are run by globalist millionaires at the top, even to the point of running so called "opposition" candidates from the same billionaire boys club fraternity secret society, that's a joke, a dog and pony show. Candidates who are so far removed from the productive middle class electorate, so much so that they don't even know what a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk really costs-that's a dog and pony show political system, a farce. When elected leaders come from hereditary political dynasties-basically an elite aristocracy- including the ex head of the "secret police", that's a sham, a dog and pony show. When you have overwhelming smoking gun evidence that the "electronic" elections have been hacked and compromised, that quite possibly whomever is in office shouldn't be there, yet nothing happens, and no one gets into any trouble over it-it goes beyond a dog and pony show and starts to look like any other banana republic dictatorship, just with two "wings" instead of one to give the illusion of "free and honest elections". When you have an overwhelmingly large violent "incident", that pushes forth a radical anti freedom agenda, and there is enough credible evidence with literally dozens of quite peculiar characteristics that don't jibe in any manner whatsoever with the "official story of what happened", and there are no actual honest and open investigations, instead they push forth an obvious whitewash/coverup/ignore the evidence that doesn't fit commission-you have to ask yourself, when can a violent coup be called a coup?
The US has been in a slow and steady gradual takeover by shadowy elements very powerful inside and outside of government, ever since an actual brave and thoughtful president-Ike- thought it necessary to warn the people during his retirement speech that it could and would happen if we weren't careful. Later on, the folks he was warning about managed to get rid of one elected person who was getting wise to them and was seeking to limit their power. Then they eliminated his brother, who looked likely to carry the torch on for his fallen sibling-yet nothing has happened about it. It's gotten worse since then, until now, we have only the faintest mirage of real freedom as it was originally designed to be, and that mirage is fading fast, with various "patriotic enabling acts" and "signing statements" that clearly show that only one agenda will go forward and the people and their wishes be damned, with big wars completely based on proven lies, wars which still will not end even when the lies are finally admitted to, and nothing happens to the proven liars.
Calling it a "dog and pony show" is being excessively *polite* and minimalistic near as I can see.
Wow. See, the thing is, when I read your post, I laughed. I thought you were being funny. Then I continued reading, and realized you were serious. That made me laugh harder.
Lets go through, point by point:
Would your friend have felt better if we'd made Iraq our 51st state first? Then we would be fighting them on our own territory, rather than that of another country. Either way, the fight would have been exactly the same thing!
We are morally justified in fighting with them (whoever "they" are in Iraq. I don't really know, do you? Oh, right, yes, the "Insurgents". That makes it so much clearer. Please, before you say something else stupid, read soldiers talking about how THEY don't know who they are fighting, which is part of the reason why things like Haditha keep happening), cause we could have claimed their country as ours, and then we would be fighting them in OUR land. I mean, we could say the same thing about France (were we to invade). "Well we could just make FRANCE our 51st state, so we are justified in fighting them, cause if we had they would have fought with us, so they are fighting with us now, so it is the EXACT SAME THING". (that is the line that made me laugh.
Fact: Saddam sponsored terrorism. Among his other acts, was paying rewards to families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in Israel. That alone is enough to condemn him.
Well, now that IS true. Not particularly Relevant, but true. I mean, if you were talking about Israel Invading Iraq, THEN it would make sense. But, well, I mean, Person C hit Person D. That Gives Person U the right to beat the living crap out of C? And before you say "well, that is just the terrorism I mentioned. There were others." Why don't you mention them in the first place. I mean, when someone brings and irrelevant prooftext, it makes me think they dont have a relevant one.
Fact: Terrorism knows no boundaries, nor will being nice to terrorists make them your friends.
The second part I wholly agree with. I am not sure I should, consider, for instance, the IRA. But, I do. Actually, though, the vast majority of terrorism is very local. 9/11 is not a proof to the contrary, it is a horrific exception. Where was Timothy McVeigh from? Oklahoma you say? Those Suicide Bombers In Israel? Why, as soon as the seperation fence went up, their numbers dropped dramatically. I don't really know enough about Indonesia, or Spain.
Fact: This is a war, and failure to recognize and admit this is the first step to losing it.
This is a war we started. By Choice. And, in so doing we de-stabalized a fairly stable, non-threatening state. Committing virtually all of our military strength to an area, that, before we went there, wasnt a threat. Giving other places (Iran anyone?) who are a threat to us, a much greater sense of security, in threatening us. What do you think losing is, if not what we are doing now? Bleeding our troops, exhausting them, wrecking their battle-readiness. Oh, and bleeding our economy at a rate of, 200? 300 BILLION dollars a year?
Fact: We fight them there, or we fight them here. Your choice. I've already made mine.
This is the one that really pisses me off. Makes me want to say something like, you stupid arrogant FUCK. Now, if you have served in the army, if you have lived in a tent, and not seen your family or loved ones for months or years at a time, then, really I apologize, and you really have a right to say that. Otherwise, you probably, like the vast majority of Americans, don't do a damn thing. I am just guessing, that you, like our president, don't know a fucking THING about what it mean to fight them there (I, just in case you are intersted, HAVE been in the army, though not the American one (I have Dual citizenship with and was drafted in Israel), and DO know what it is to spend months in the dessert in a
The article actually says that the airships are to crack down on crime.
The Slashdot summary talks about keeping tabs on local populace.
The Slashdot comments talk about Chevez and Bush politics.
It seems like everyone has their preconceived views on Venezuela and puts their own spin on the story. Is Slashdot so set in its thinking?
3 airships is hardly likely to change the social fabric of Caracas. Most police forces have helicopters to chase criminals and I would think the UK has many more than 3 available, without anyone talking about overtones of surveillance society.
C'mon lets see moderators pick out the interesting comments about this story, not the precanned predecided views on Venezuela.
I happen to *live* in Caracas, and the prevailing view is not one of the government spying on us (we have lower standards regarding privacy than the US or European countries), but many rather view this as an utterly useless expense. Besides the simple fact that a manageable number of balloons cannot possibly watch every alley and corner:
Then there's the certainty that the balloons will be shot at for the sheer fun of it, as a huge inflatable Santa deployed every year on the side of a building can attest to. The balloons are naturally partitioned to account for that, but given a finite number of compartments and a practically endless supply of bullets and shooters...
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
OK, this is the theory, it is different from today's practice (unfortunately, IMO), but I will attempt to correct a misconception about the US Constitution which is widespread and totally incorrect.
Basic data point you REALLY need to grok. chew on this until you "get it". This is very important and something I notice almost all foreigners and very few people inside the US for that matter really understand, because the elites don't want them to understand it, so they go way out of their way to brainwash people against it starting the first week in school.
The Constitution does NOT grant any individual rights to people, zero.
We are BORN with them.
If the constitution didn't exist, we would still have those rights (as do all peoples, but most places the government will not recognize that because it cuts into their controlling turf scene).
The Bill of Rights-the first ten "amendments", are a very basic minimal and partial list that was written up PRECISELY to give some examples so that the original meaning could never be lost or altered. The Constitution is by and large a list of stuff the "government" is never supposed to infringe upon. By default, all rights reside with "we, the People", and we the people granted government certain limited functions and duties, WE granted THEM some "rights", which they are supposed to strictly adhere to.
It's bass-ackwards now, "government" assumes they have all the rights, and sells or offers "permission" back to the people to do this or that.
And that's what's wrong in a nutshell.
The US is the only nation-to this day the ONLY nation- ever to adopt the concept of the sovereign individual, as opposed to some ruling class who are the sovereigns. It is that simple. I propose a return to that concept, and elimination of today's current political reality, which I have termed "Technofeudalism".