Slashdot Mirror
Houston Police Test Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft
54mc writes "The Houston Police Department was filmed testing an unmanned aircraft in a secretive gathering on Wednesday. The media were not allowed into the event; however they were told that the aircraft would be used for 'mobility' and 'tactical' issues, and possibly even for writing traffic tickets. The aircraft has a wingspan of 10 feet and is said to cost from $30K to $1M. Pictures and video are available at the link." The article mentions that the craft was being operated by staff from a private firm called Insitu, Inc.. The device in the video looks like the firm's ScanEagle.
I hope they don't intent to recoup the cost by handing out traffic tickets.
That's a very broad price range.
I didn't know transformers existed.
I'm not sure why this story was filed under "privacy" rather than "technology". Nobody's freaked out by police helicopters, whether they are used to find traffic offenders, in police chases, or as observation posts for police raids. Using unmanned aircraft instead is a no-brainer. They are cheaper to operate, can stay up longer, and people don't die when they collide (though this incident was with civillian helicopters).
Wow, a million may buy from 1 to 33 of these birds... Very specific.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
$30K to $1M? Why not just admit that you don't know how much it costs?
I can't possibly see this thing helping local law enforcement much. It's obviously not going to land next to you and physically write a ticket out, but it would probably take lots of pictures. This would be so very intrusive to have some sort of plane constantly watching over you.
You mean like this guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
This thing has a hell of a lot of tickets to write. That's some quota!
What?
Speeding is not the only traffic offence, and it is also one of the least likely to be dangerous. I'd like to see helicopters used to catch those who tailgate, weave in and out of traffic, cut people off, do make-up/cellphone/eat while driving, and other assorted violations that ARE dangerous. Note that these are the hardest offenders to catch and prosecute, so any new tool is welcome.
Disclaimer: I am a speeder. A safe speeder, though, who respects the weather, the vehicle's and road's capabilities, and other drivers.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Cool finaly a chance to try out my skytag
http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/tracker.shtml
Hopefully they'll consider this a supplement to officers on the street, and not a substitute. The tech path has bitten many an intelligence agency in the ass as they drop HUMINT in favor of tech.
I for one want to see if the same "+5 informative", "+5 insightful" inflamed comments about how a similar thing happening in Venezuela was a proof of a totalitarian government will be repeated on this thread, by the same set of people.
If they start handing out tickets with it. Then they better make it bullet proof. Kinda like the Red light camera housings are now.
Normaly copters are used to supplement an active investigation. If you see one, you know something is up ( or its just the local TV station running traffic reports.. )
These things will just fly around and look at everyone, hoping to catch you with your pants down. Later they will just record every move everyone makes, regardless of any suspicion. Do you want that? I don't. Unless I'm under active court supported suspicion, they don't have a right to 'follow' me around, 'just in case'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Im sure they can find other ways of recouping the costs - not just traffic tickets but how about using Guiliani's method (when he was mayor of NYC) of using RICO to impound suspected drunk drivers cars. You had better watch your driving with one of these things flying over, because the brilliance of using RICO is that you don't have to be found guilty in a criminal court to lose your car. I bet they could make up the cost fairly quickly.
Emphasis Mine!
You sir, are a fool and will kill someone some day! You're only fooling yourself!
http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/excerpt7.htm
The STU [Special Training Unit] had its own single-engine Piper Lance, and had obtained a BigEye surveillance pod for it. The BigEye was a gyro-stabilized combination video camera for daytime use, and infra-red camera for night use. An operator in the plane could put the camera's cursor mark on a stationary or moving ground target and the camera would lock on to it even as the plane circled high above, out of sight and sound of its quarry.
The extensive use of light planes was a tradition in the ATF going back decades; from the time when the "revenue agents" had flown them to spot bootleg liquor stills from the air. These pilot-qualified agents bragged that for them ATF stood for 'agents that fly'. The numerous flying special agents and ATF light planes often permitted them to reach the scenes of federal crimes involving illegal firearms or explosives before any other agencies. Any one-horse Podunk town with a dirt landing strip nearby could usually have ATF agents on the ground in a few hours at most. The ATF was independently air-mobile to a greater degree than most other agencies at the light plane end of the aviation spectrum.
After a brief familiarization period with the BigEye Malvone gave his air team the addresses of a dozen senior government officials who were in a position to help the STU. They hit pay dirt on a Sunday morning in June when the Piper was flying lazy eights over Fairfax County Virginia, and they noticed activity at the estate of Deputy AG Paul Wilson. A Mercedes arrived with a young couple who turned out to be Wilson's daughter and son-in-law. Mrs. Wilson then left with them to attend church services.
Soon after the driveway's automatic gate closed behind the Mercedes, Paul Wilson had appeared in a bathrobe on the back patio of the mansion by the swimming pool, accompanied by someone else. The stabilized zoom lens of the Big Eye then recorded in intimate detail the white-haired senior federal official and a black-haired girl playing in the Jacuzzi, with no detail left to the imagination for the next fifteen minutes. Upon further investigation the girl had turned out to be the 16 year old daughter of the Wilson's Costa Rican housekeeper, who had taken the day off.
Malvone was smiling broadly at the memory. "As soon as I saw that tape I knew we'd own Wilson, we'd have him in our pocket. When the time comes he's going to go to bat for us, big time, and we'll get the Special Projects Division approved."
"The FBI's going to fight it. They'll never let ATF have a new division with that much power."
"That's where you're wrong Joe, the STU or SPD or what ever we end up calling it is going to be seen as a dirty outfit for dirty jobs, and the FBI won't want any part of it. If the SPD falls on its face, the stink won't rub off on them. They'll be glad to let the ATF have it, and let the ATF take the hit if things go wrong. By the time they figure out what's really going on, the Special Projects Division will be too big for them to stop."
"The privacy nutters never seem to come up with better arguments then "this won't allow us to break the law anymore". Fine with me, don't like the law, change it, don't break it."
What an intelligent suggestion... and one that shows your comprehensive knowledge of history! Why, if only the citizens of the USSR had known, they could have just changed the law rather than running from the gulag! Same goes for the citizens of Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and even the United States under slavery. What were those people thinking, rebelling against slavery, running away from their legal owners, protesting the laws by violating them? They should have just changed the law, not broken it!
Yes, you really do seem to understand this. I applaud your pure insight. When an unjust law exists, it is our responsibility to obey it!
And lying about a supposed FAA NOTAM restricting flight in the area is very unlikely to win them any friends in Washington.
-b.
...and you've never seen the Autobahn at its best. No speed limit, and it WORKS. Why? Drivers who want to KEEP that lack of a speed limit driving at high rates in a usually logical manner.
I've seen it in motion. Fraggin' beautiful.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Please, mod parent AC comment up. I couldn't have expressed myself more clearly.
Just don't let the price be everything that a free democratic republic should hold dear. It's not the monetary cost, it's the cost to your liberty that is at stake.
However, that doesn't work when the speed limit doesn't reflect the speed that people are actually travelling on the road. I've seen lots of roads where the speed limit is set way below the actual speed that people travel. If you drive at the speed limit, then not only will you get a lot of other drivers really angry, but you'll probably be really unsafe too, as drivers will come up behind you at a really high speed. Also, for a little experiment in speed limits, try coordinating with 3 other people to each drive in one lane of the expressway at the speep limit. Not directly beside eachother, but with just enough room for other drivers to pass and go around you. Watch the traffic pile up behind you, and bring the city to a stand still, and watch the lack of traffic in front of you. What's really terrible is that speed limits are set such that they are not to be followed. Then they arrest you for going 2 km/h faster than the other guy, just because you happen to be going 30 km/h over the limit, and he was going 28 km/h over the limit.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I wonder if they even informed the FAA, as required:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-2402.htm
[...] the applicant must state the intended use for the UAS and provide sufficient information to satisfy the FAA that the aircraft can be operated safely. The time or number of flights must be specified along with a description of the areas over which the aircraft would operate. The application must also include drawings or detailed photographs of the aircraft. An on-site review of the system and demonstration of the area of operation may be required.
Hope they did it in the vicinity of a GA airport or something, so there'll be good grounds for a complaint. It won't shut them down completely, I'm sure, but it'll certainly slow them down quite a bit and put the proverbial red tape noose around their necks.
-b.
How valuable will these aircraft be? A price ranging from $30K to $1M is extremely broad. Cars can range from $800 - $4,000,000...but they are significantly different in capabilities. In any case, $30k is more then a lot of officers make in a year anyway. Is the price/value ratio worth it?
Several posters have commented that the price spread is between 30k and 1 M. A quick visit to the company's web site makes it fairly clear that these drones come with a wide range of electronics. The more electronics you stuff into them, the more they cost.
;-)
They've been making and selling these for years and know darn well what they cost.
The company's capabilities are impressive. One of their first products flew across the Atlantic, in 27 hours using 1.5 gallons of gas. Any model plane builder I know would have real trouble doing the same.
Several other posters have complained about the cost. A typical remark concerns how many traffic tickets it takes to pay for the drone. At 30k, the drone costs less than a fully equipped patrol car.
You Maam, are not making any point at all.
What do you think is the most common cause of accidents?
Don't you think that risks can be mitigated by training and efficient technique?
I am a lead-foot too, but I am safe. I am safe because I don't go faster than my sight distance, I am safe because I maintain my vehicle meticulously, I am safe because I make a point to be safe.
The truth is, the posted speed limits are set low enough that even poor drivers are relatively harmless to others. A skilled driver will be able to drive faster than the speed limit without endangering anybody.
Another thing is, if everyone is going 15 mph above the limit and there's one guy who insists on going exactly the limit, that person is creating a safety hazard as everyone tries to pass him.
Except that there is more accident on the autobahn without speed limits than on those with speed limits.
There is roughly half of the autobahn with speed limits, and two third of the accident occurs in section with speed limits.[1]
This has to be considered with knowing that the speed limits in place for the autobahn are in places supposed to be more dangerous.
Also, variable speed limits are to be seriously considered with traffic (if you're alone, go ahead break the speed, when there is someone else, though it's a different matter).[2]
What might spread the legend, is that highway in Europe (except maybe UK, and I do not know how it is for the rest of the world) are safer, in every possible ways (per road trip, per kilometer), than other roads (especially city roads).
So an highway without speed limits, the autobahn, is safer than pretty much every other roads, except highway with speed limits.
Though, be aware that even in Europe, the autobahn is often used as a point without mentioning its accident rate compared to other european highway with speed limits, but instead compared to the national rates.
[1]http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2201624,00.html
[2]http://www.benefitcost.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/Print/5F01DD9F62A2282C8525733A006D4BEA
I can't wait to see how this works out. Right off the top of my head I can think of two possibilities. The first is obvious: Good Ole Boys, Shotguns, Pickups and Beer. It would beat hell out of shooting buzzards and road signs.
The second possibility could actually be a real money-maker for Texas. I bet model airplane freaks from all over the planet would trade entire blow-up girlfriend collections for a chance to try their skills against this flying speed trap. And no doubt they'd discover all kinds of interesting things to mount on an air-going Terminator with a two-foot wingspan and a nasty attitude.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
A much more obvious example is traffic lights. Anyone remember the stories of cities reducing the time of yellow lights after they installed red light enforcement cameras?
Isn't this a pretty good example of godwins law ??
I am not sure if extreme cases like that can be considered valid arguments can they ?
blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
The big question is whether Insitu have build in the correct safety features.
For starters they must make sure they included a classified fourth directive regarding action against company executives. It is vitally important that the Insitu management can still drive there porches to work without worrying about niggling details like speeding tickets.
I dont read
as long as the private firm isn't Blackwater, we're safe for the moment.
God Be Gone
Since when is any technological development used for anything besides making people lazier?
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Currently police departments collect revinue by rader,laser,redlight camera or aircraft speedchecking. What they obviously want is a pilotless solution that will mindlessly, relentlessly, "tax" motorists from the air. And because its a drone aircraft its innerworkings cannot be challenged in court like they can be with a radar/laser/redlight camera/normal aircraft speedcheck. If I get a ticket for speeding by airborne speedcheck I can request the pilots flightlogs. But because the drones could potentially be used in homeland security applications makes it "top secret" you most likely can request any information. Basicly they are looking for limitless capactiy to "tax" motorists without the ability for motorists to challenge the validity. As an added bonus with the computer enhanced optics required to properly perform airborne speedchecks surveylence and tracking of anyone outdoors can be acomplished electronicly and recorded by computer for your future harassment. This occuring in texas means that the only way this isnt going to happen is if the first one in the air malfunctions and crashes into a gunshop. Then public outcry would shut down the project. But nothing will stop this from branching into the other 49 states.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0721-10.htm
..
Story from July 2005.
Riot Control Ray Gun Causes Worry
WASHINGTON -- Scientists are questioning the safety of a Star Wars-style riot control ray gun due to be deployed in Iraq next year.
The Active Denial System weapon, classified as "less lethal" by the Pentagon, fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds.
The idea is people caught in the beam will rapidly try to move out of it and therefore break up the crowd.
But New Scientist magazine reported today that during tests carried out at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, participants playing the part of rioters were told to remove glasses and contact lenses to protect their eyes.
In another test they were also told to remove metal objects like coins from their clothing to avoid local hot spots developing on their skin.
"What happens if someone in a crowd is unable for whatever reason to move away from the beam," asked Neil Davison, coordinator of the non-lethal weapons research project at Britain's Bradford University.
"How do you ensure that the dose doesn't cross the threshold for permanent damage? Does the weapon cut out to prevent overexposure?," he said.
The magazine said a vehicle-mounted version of the weapon named Sheriff was scheduled for service in Iraq in 2006 and that US Marines and police were both working on portable versions.
Talked about in 2005.
Used in Iraq in 2006.
In major news outlets in 2007.
In U.S streets in 2008?
Watch this space.
- going faster than the speed limit and endangering everybody else
- not going faster than the speed limit and being a safety hasard, in other words endangering everybody else
Good pointI'm now convinced that the safest thing is for everyone to drive the limit, regardless of skill level. It's unfortunate that safety is not high on many people's priority lists. Perhaps a good strategy would be to point out the fuel efficiency benefit of slower driving.
I remember my father doing something similar several decades ago when I had collided with another little-league ballplayer and my nose was spurting blood at a visually dramatic, but not life-threatening rate.
I don't want to live in a place where it is impossible to break the law.
You know, "Small Furry Creature", I find the term "privacy nutter" a little bit insulting, but considering that category includes every single one of the Founding Fathers of this country, as well as some of the finest men and women in our nation's history, I guess I don't mind that much.
If you don't think privacy is that important, why don't you scan the contents of your wallet and post them on Flickr? Keep trying. You'll eventually get it right. Why are you planning to join the force?
Seriously, not wanting the police or government to perform unwarranted surveillance does not make a person a "privacy nutter". Why do you believe the police need all these "new tools" anyway? Why don't we train them better with the tools they already have, first? Granting them all sorts of new extra-constitutional powers and intrusive technology is not only a bad idea, it's unnecessary.
You are welcome on my lawn.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Apparently these drones launch off a catapult, and are captured mid flight without needing a runway.
Video here
What the gullible Houston police probably didn't realize is that Insitu, Inc., the company that makes the drones, likely regards all the publicity as a plus.
This is the basic problem with all the DARPA-bankrolled projects: even top secret technologies are marketable for the companies that develop them.
And eager to market they are. Here's what they say on their own site:
8:57 PM
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
When there are accidents on the Autobahn, they are spectacular dozens of car pileups. Ick!
Actually, improperly calibrated radar guns can clock a tree at 10mph on a windless day. What is not up for debate is that you are a fucking idiot and as un-American as they come. I don't care if you go back to China or Britain or wherever, but you can't stay here.
The Farewell Tour II
From TFA:
Houston police contacted KPRC from the test site, claiming the entire airspace was restricted by the Federal Aviation Administration. Police even threatened action from the FAA if the Local 2 helicopter remained in the area. However, KPRC reported it had already checked with the FAA on numerous occasions and found no flight restrictions around the site, a point conceded by Montalvo. When police department officials lie in an attempt to bully media out of covering simple testing of a technology, why (and how) do they expect that citizens will have *any* faith whatsoever with regard to their claimed motivations for a so-called service or, in the event of a rollout, of adherence to any privacy-related constraints/governance?It's not even off the ground yet (!) and the bullshitting has already started.
The wind blew, the crap flew, and for days the vision was bad.
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
As a Houstonite, I'd like to point out that KPRC is a shill station in the eyes of many other Houstonites. They frequently blow up minor stories into giant exposés. This was more than likely a demo of some super high tect product that HPD probably won't buy for a while, and they just brought it in as a cool toy.
--<Mike>--
(1) What sort of pilot's licence do you need to operate one of these?
(2) Given that the pilot is sitting safely on the ground, and doesn't have the same incentive that other airborne pilots have to not fly into me, what happens when one of these jokers kills me with one of their toys? They just file a report, and go home to their families, and fly again tomorrow?
Are a few traffic tickets really worth that?
The range is not really that surprising.
For 30k (or 10k if you don't get ripped off), you can build an aircraft that relies on GPS + digital compass with a built in map for navigation, uses sonar for handling weaknesses in the map (e.g. the map didn't mention this aircraft just in front of me), and stores/transmits pictures (over 3G).
However, if you want to have onboard video processing then things start getting expensive very fast. A processor and graphics card powerful enough to do image processing is very hard to make small and low power (where hard is a synonym for expensive). As you start putting higher power requirements on the engine, you have to put greater weight (damn batteries) which coupled with how heavy batteries are means you have to start buying hideously expensive small/light/powerful batteries. Also, you have to do the same with every other component of the system - the motor is the most obvious but the rest of the aircraft has to be specced to handle an extra 10 pounds without being any larger or heavier.
Next, if your computer is drawing nontrivial amounts of juice, you've got to seriously think about whether you're better with a generator onboard rather than seperate batteries. Oh, and you better get a really efficient generator since you can't afford the weight of more fuel. I'm sure you can see where this is heading.
Crudely put, think about cellphone technology. What you're asking for is something like a cellphone (with a couple pretty standard addons like GPS and sonar) except you're wanting a cellphone from five years in the future in terms of power and features. How much do you think it costs to custom-build a cellphone from five years in the future today?
Finally, but perhaps most important, I've skipped over development time. These projects take a lot of work and even more testing. You can only do so much with Flight Gear before you have to build and crash a few to configure the software. Want to test the emergency radio override before you start flying this thing around the city, you'll have to crash a few in the process. Even if you're getting development at cost (ie. you hire a team of programmers to do it for you), you'll still pay around $1M and have to amortise that over all the planes you build. Few people get development at cost either - it is hard to build up a team of decent programmers so much easier to contract to a company that's already done it.
This company is going to the dogs http://www.insitu.com/documents/policies/DOG%20POLICY%20FINAL%20050107.pdf
I speed down some of these same roadways. So does pretty much everyone else. The way I see it, I could drive the speed limit or I could follow flow of traffic. One option makes me a huge hazard on the road while the other at least helps keep me from being a barrier and getting hit. Sure, people could become traffic vigilantes and only drive the speed limit and get in the way for speeders. But that isn't safe and it isn't their job to enforce the law.
However, my sole beef with these systems are that they aren't programed to look at the situation. They are simply going to be used to look for speeding over a set number. I see a lot of people getting tickets up front with whatever the initial rule is and once enough complaints have been drawn up, the system being scaled back to almost nothing and being a huge waste of money.
I would love to see such technology looking for reckless drivers. Those guys that weave through traffic at speeds way greater than flow of traffic in cars or bikes. I think giving them tickets is far more important and can make everything far safer for everyone.
Sounds a lot like First Person View: R/C aircraft with cameras patched into VR goggles (optionally with pan'n'tilt cameras controlled by motion sensor)
See for example:
Low and Slow video
Wikipedia
They raise your taxes. Since there is little to no justification its really quite simple.
And just because you are paranoid doesnt make it any less possible.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Um, leave out nazi's and godwin isnt involved and the arguments are still extremely valid. Laws are created by those in positions of influence, and sometimes this is good. Sometimes not.
Slavery is a very good example of lawmakers making unjust, immoral laws. However, if you need to feel better about something, you can keep in mind that this argument makes it such that I cant be so smug about 1812 anymore either (the old "get your country legally" rant =).
Ice Cream has no bones.
I am a fool? The speed limits are designed for poorly maintained vehicles on poorly maintained roads, driven by poor drivers in poor weather. When I'm in my 2008 Ford Focus, with over 15 years of accident-free driving behind me, clear skies and clear road in front of me, I can afford to add another 40 KPH very safely to the legal limit. If I get caught I will not cry, as I am knowingly breaking the law. That said, I would like to see other very dangerous drivers, slow though they might be, be held accountable for the hazards that they cause.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
It's not even a remotely new concept, though, to have aircraft monitor freeway speeds. As far back as I can remember, Oregon has had the "bear in the air" enforcing the speed limit down the interstate and some rural hiways. Personally, I've been saved a ticket by spotting it through some trees before it flew over (came around the next corner and a dozen police units were waiting, ready to take down a pack of speeders).
Of course, in most parts of Oregon it's possible to safely go the speed limit (or at least reasonably close). Now that I live in Seattle, that's a dangerous idea in some areas and times of day. Of course, I haven't seen anybody get a ticket during those times unless they were going reasonably faster than the rest of traffic.
My car, based on averages of roughly 5-mile stretches of a Florida highway using cruise control, gets its peak fuel economy (a lamentable 27 mpg)at 72 mph. It is not a small car, nor is it particularly aerodynamic.
It would be wrong to assume that slower driving always results in greater fuel efficiency for the simple reason that wind resistance is not the sole factor in determining wasted energy.
Safety is the most important factor in obeying speed limits, and should be such in setting them as well.
Interestingly, the GP's poor driver may already be in legal trouble. Most states have a little-known "reasonable and prudent" clause modifying their speed laws. Basically, you are required to drive at an appropriate speed depending on the road conditions and traffic regardless of the posted speed limit. It can be used to get out of speeding tickets under certain circumstances, but you can also get tickets under its rules. Most of the time, it's people driving too fast, but under the limit, under particularly adverse conditions like low visibility or slush.
But it's certainly also within the realm of possibility to get a ticket for driving below the posted limit when the "flow of traffic" is above it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
"The claim that the innocent have nothing to hide may be up for debate, but "non-speeders don't need to fear the radar gun" is not."
Wrong. In Texas, where this device was tested, speeding is not automatically defined by what a speed limit says, so you most definitely may "fear the radar gun" even if you are a "non-speeder". If there are no drivers exceeding posted speeds, then the government lowers the posted speeds, and if you don't believe this, then you don't live in the US. Speed limits are not set based on safety, they are set to ensure an adequate supply of violators.
Another interesting thing about Texas is that you have a right to face your accuser in court. Using automated systems such as unmanned aircraft and photo radar is problematic because your accuser must be a human being who witnessed your "crime". Hasn't stopped some jurisdictions from implementing photo radar, but it isn't clear that it's constitutional.
These become armed with missiles?
"We don't need no stinking warrant"
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
"Speeding is defined as driving faster than the posted speed limit."
Maybe where you live but not where I live. The government loves for you to think that, however.
He could observe courtesy (and what the law requires in many areas) by driving in the slowest lanes thereby minimizing or eliminating any safety hazard caused by his slow driving.
It's well known that excessive speed differentials create dangerous conditions. That's why freeways have minimum speed limits and why failure to yield right of way is seriously enforced in some areas. A strong argument could be made that safety hazards created by excessively slow drivers are just as much the government's responsibility as anyone else. They're the ones setting deliberately slow speed limits that encourage drivers to ignore posted speeds and they're the one's supporting low standards of driver competence in their licensing policies. Where uniform speeds are driven, whether or not they correlate to posted speeds, driving is relatively safer. Raising speed limits, therefore, can have a beneficial effect on safety in some cases.
Nuernburg doctrine: Conscience MUST trump unjust law and command orders. Following orders hung ten men. I must slam the hammer of truth on the anvil of reality. The more people who 'succeed' (you all know my list of things by now), the less likely that these laws will be changed. Let's hope that the coming 10.5 Richter of the banking system will make enough people understand and act.
What royally boils my potatoes is that there are those who came the the USA to escape tyranny and now their children are gainfully employed in corporations that make technology to continue and upscale tyranny abroad and now here. These kids should bear a special kind of guilt not too dissimilar from those who hung after the abovementioned trial.
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
heh, and they don't look anything like those varmints from half life 2
Fascism. What does it mean?
Here are some key ingredients of fascism:
What do you think it means when AT&T is making a copy of all Internet traffic going through it's backbones and giving it to the government? (hint: basically all US Internet traffic goes through AT&T at some point).
What does it mean when we have predator-like spy drones monitoring our cities spying on our own citizens?
Here's the kicker, this will catch all the people who didn't bother to read my post and start calling me a wacko (I assure you I am quite normal, even cool. Please refrain from ad hominems):
I'm not saying we are in a fascist state, please draw your on conclusion. Imagine a sliding scale from the free democracy which our founders intended, free of persecution, with habeas corpus and all our protections, now picture where we are today - Where are we on the road to fascism? Do we have to get to the point where there is a dictator and our citizens are being shot in their homes before we start to think about it?
Liberty.
And once you've finished reading the article, ask yourself which candidates for local, state, and/or national office are promising that they'll stop this whole, Orwellian madness right in its tracks.
Ron Paul has promissed this, but GWB also promissed a smaller, less intrusive government. YMMV.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Just because Godwin is invoked does not immediately invalidate the argument. The Nazi argument may be somewhat cliché, but that doesn't mean that the lessons or arguments are any less correct. Those who refuse to learn from history (or outright ignore it on "principle", such as invoking Godwin) are doomed to repeat it.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Just because it's better than others doesn't mean that it's as good as it could be. That is a stupid argument to make. "Well, I'm in jail for a crime I didn't commit. At least I'm not wrongly jailed AND being tortured, I should be thankful!". The problem isn't the UAV... it's the lack of transparency and the lies that the Houston PD gave when confronted with the evidence. The people who "protect" us should be accountable to us.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Marijuana hydroponics is a huge issue for Houston. The only way for police to get probable cause is via IR satellite, or helicopter imagery or by subpoenaing the suspects electric bill. Either way, running a hydroponic requires an enormous amount of electricity and in turn releases a large amount of IR seen from the roof tops and walls.
That said, anyone want to guess what a drone equiped with an IR camara will provide? Care to guess its efficiency over the previous methods?
Life is not for the lazy.
Today. Will it always be? Or will we install constant surveillance, which will then be used by future governments, which may or may not be as good as this one?
The innocent have everything to hide and it's all legal. Remember that not everyone has the same morals and some at home activities can go completely against the philosophy of a corporation. I don't want the potential for a cop to know something about my personal life that if brought into the public could cost me my job or cause harassment at work. I keep my personal views to most things to myself and my personal moral values at home and never bring them up at my job to avoid those situations. People lie or pay lip service to a corporate philosophy to keep a decent job: I certainly do.
So everyone has something to hide that is completely legal but could cost them their job or be embarrassing in the least.
I would be fine with this drone so long as it did not pry onto my property and have me charged with indecent exposure because some female was watching this thing while I sun bathing nude in the back of a large private property and then the images kept as evidence: a completely legal activity if the property is large enough with enough privacy barriers such as a forest owned by you complete with no trespassing signs on the borders.
The Simpsons episode with Marge and Homer naked in the pool and the police chopper stops and hovers over the pool.
After "no trespassing signs on the borders" I intened to put the following:
end situation sample against: based on some reasons people are arrested such as unauthorized access of a computer system because a cop is too stupid to understand that if the cafe owner says it was alright then it was authorized access and completely legal.Not that common but the fact it happens is asinine.
but made the mistake of putting it between braces so it got parsed as bad html.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I guess a scattergun can shot down this drone.
Anybody firing a weapon in the air over a populated area should speed time in jail (at the very least).
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
?SYNTAX ERROR
"This won't allow us to break the law anymore" is a strawman.
The real argument is that some of the capabilities the police want would violate our civil rights. Imagine this: If one out of ever two people was pressed into service to be a cop, then every other citizen could be followed around all day by a law enforcement officer. That would also prevent people from breaking the law. It would also violate your rights and would be contrary to the ideals upon which this nation was founded.
Also, since you bring up the radar gun, you are aware of course of the legal battle surrounding those devices? A lot of them are inaccurate. But instead of saying, ok, let's invest in better radar guns so that's not an issue, instead they try to silence critics by threatening them. These are the people you want to have more tools? These are the same law enforcement agencies that regularly accidentally kill people by sending the SWAT team to the wrong house to execute no-knock warrants. What I want to see is my taxpayer money invested in making these guys safer for ordinary citizens, not more dangerous to criminals.
All of that said, I don't think the unmanned drone is any different from the helicopters they already have, except more available and probably cheaper in the long run.
I'm working on a drone that will track down spy-drones and destroy them.
One minor problem, though; my test anti-drone drone keeps chasing its own tail.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
hmm.. reducto ad absurdm and godwins law, this reminds me so much of that Questionable Content comic.
blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
Remember what happened in Robocop? Soon private business firms will control the streets. Then the Terminator plot can't be much further in the future.... Honestly though, why should I allow the private sector to violate my privacy? Corruption should be the first concern in any law enforcement venture.
The Detroit Free Press did the research back in 2002 that showed shaving just 2 seconds off the yellow jumped tickets by over 50%. And, surprise surprise, where for-profit cameras were run, yellow lights were shorter than average. What exactly was made safer by shorter yellows? Just the corporations' money.
In regards to surveillance, no.
That's not surveillance by any definition, especially the legal one. What a disgustingly childish and transparent attempt on your part.
Can you make your point without the straw men? I doubt it.
That's a textbook example of the prejudicial fallacy.
All right, where's the "adhominem (sic)"? Prove what you said is true or admit you're lying. I didn't even ADDRESS the "goalpost" and, predictably, you accuse ME of moving them. Amazing that you'd think such a tactic would work.
"I would answer your question, but you'll move the goalposts again.
In short, you're not staying on topic, I suspect because you have nothing that can refute OP, so you try to change the definition of the terms used.
Very disingenuous on your part, but not even a little surprising."
Ok, where is the "adhominem (sic)"? WELL? There isn't one, so you're a liar (which incidentally is ALSO not an ad hominem as it is true).
You're a disingenuous, mentally deficient, logically stunted troll, and I caught you.
You claimed I used "adhominems" (sic). Prove it or admit you were lying.
And I really like how you try to deflect attention away from the fact that I proved you were both wrong and a liar by resorting to childish banter.
Is it really that difficult for people like you to admit you're wrong and lying? It's there in black and white, why do you think you can pretend you weren't wrong and lying when people can see it.
You can't make your point without the straw men. That, coupled with your inability to admit you were caught lying means I have stopped giving a fuck about your opinion.
Not that I gave it much weight in the first place, you're obviously not very intelligent.
You claimed I used "adhominems" (sic) but I didn't. That makes you a liar.
Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that the report stirs up concerns over "privacy invasion," when they used hidden cameras to film flight operations at a private ranch? Also, they tout the UAV's scary abilities to see into cars, while filming the reporter, in a car, from a flying helicopter... Maybe the news station should ground themselves if they're so concerned about privacy.