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 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.
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 ----
"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!
You have no expectation of privacy in public. Maybe that's why they call it "public". Don't like it? Stay home and close your windows.
I'm just curious. Is there anything that the state could do in "public" where you would finally say, "that's enough"? Apparently continuous, permanent, ever-present surveillance doesn't seem to bother you. How about in order to move from city block to city block you have to stop and present yourself for a full-body search, fingerprint, retinal scan, and DNA sample? Would you still say, "don't like it, just stay home"? I hope you would - and if so, there must be a line somewhere between the two. Where would you draw that line? And does it seem so radical to you that some of us may choose to draw that line closer to protecting privacy and freedom of movement than you might?
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.
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
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