Aerial Drones To Help Cops In Miami

Catoonsis writes "Reuters is reporting that 'Miami police could soon be the first in the United States to use cutting-edge, spy-in-the-sky technology to beef up their fight against crime.' The police force is planning to make use of a small aerial drone, capable of hovering and quick maneuvers, to monitor the Miami-Dade area and alert officers of potential problems. The device, manufactured by Honeywell, is awaiting FAA approval before it can be put into use. This decision is just the latest chapter in the developing relationship between law enforcement and robotic assistants. 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been flying drones over the Arizona desert and southwest border with Mexico since 2006 and will soon deploy one in North Dakota to patrol the Canadian border as well. This month, Customs and Border Protection spokesman Juan Munoz Torres said the agency would also begin test flights of a modified version of its large Predator B drones, built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, over the Gulf of Mexico.'"

Comments

Car chases are going to get even better!

[binaryspiral]

I'm going to start tuning into more car chase coverage on the news if those drones are packing a pair of hellfires!

Yes, yes... I'm sure they'll be unarmed, or at least the ones they show you up close.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[600Burger]

Imperial probe droid! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probe_droid

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[jb68321]

I'm going to start tuning into more car chase coverage on the news if those drones are packing a pair of hellfires!

Yes, yes... I'm sure they'll be unarmed, or at least the ones they show you up close. RTFA. The thing is only 18.5 lb when fully loaded with fuel, and that wiki you link to says Hellfires are at least 99lb, with >18lb warheads. The weight alone doesn't make sense... remember this thing flies/hovers.

More like "Landing airliner collides with drone. 400 dead. Including 10 on the ground. The drone was mistakenly armed with nuclear weapons and exploded when the drone crashed, killing 50,000 more". I think dropping tear gas capsules would be a lot more likely than sending off missiles/nuclear arms anyways.

And this thing is "designed to fly between ground level and 500 ft," which tells me that it'll be rather easy to keep away from light aircraft. Sure, it can go up to 10,500 ft in optimal conditions, but what good would that do? That'd be an enormous amount of climbing time for such a small vehicle, wasting tons of fuel. Especially in the heat of Miami, they'll probably keep it as low as possible. A 747 or some such large passenger aircraft, weighing between 735,000 and 970,000 lb, would probably suffer minimal damage if it ran into something like this anyways. I believe they still do the frozen chicken tests during engine design.

Here's a more informative video and website:
video
website

I hate the idea of this thing buzzing around, and it sure is ugly, but I think it's silly to think they'll throw it in front of light aircraft, which is the only way you'd really hit it... assuming only the police are using the drone. If some media/photography groups get a hold of this, sure it'll become a huge issue as it'll be everywhere and anywhere without warning. More likely it'll be infringing on your personal space rather than aircraft (ie back yard, parks, shopping areas). But given the crowd down in Miami, unless it's bullet-proof, it won't last very long.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[cayenne8]

"I hate the idea of this thing buzzing around, and it sure is ugly, but I think it's silly to think they'll throw it in front of light aircraft, which is the only way you'd really hit it... assuming only the police are using the drone. If some media/photography groups get a hold of this, sure it'll become a huge issue as it'll be everywhere and anywhere without warning. More likely it'll be infringing on your personal space rather than aircraft (ie back yard, parks, shopping areas). But given the crowd down in Miami, unless it's bullet-proof, it won't last very long."

Hmm...next item on ThinkGeek.com, personal anti-drone missle.

:-)

Seriously, I wonder how long it will be before they have to pass a special law making it against the law to shoot these things down?

I wonder how long it will be before some enterprising civilians hack into this thing and take over control? I'm sure it will have to be some type of radio controlled thing...should be easy to jam its signal, eh?

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[electrictroy]

They wouldn't need these drones if they Decriminalized drugs and made them available via doctor's prescription.

The drug runners business would dry up.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[TheGavster]

I've always said that CVS is a lot less likely to stage a driveby shooting of Walgreens than Racially Neutral Name 1 is to stage a driveby of Racial Neutral Name 2's illicit drug operation.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Omestes]

They wouldn't need these drones if they Decriminalized drugs and made them available via doctor's prescription.

Off topic, but one problem with this; I really doubt that most people do drugs for health problems, though those that do should probably get them, granting that full medical studies would be needed. I really don't see my average pothead freind going to a doctor, then a pharmacy just to get a bag of weed he could probably still got on the street cheaper.

I say cheaper, since it seems classifying drugs as pharmacudicals would raise the price, just look at the average cost of American prescriptions.

I think in the dim possibility of legalized drugs they should be handled like alcohol in the states that still have state governed distribution, or like the shops in Amersterdam.

That said, I rather doubt the wisdom of legalizing ALL drugs, pot probably should be legal, but heroin less so. We should definatly not go after users though, and basically decriminalize small quanities of drugs so we can instead focus more on the supply chain, clear up the people that don't belong in our prison system, and divert some man power to keeping the druggies safe (clean needle exchange, better rehab and treatment programs, etc..), at least.

Back on topic: I don't know whether to put on my tinfoil hat or not on this story. The police already have plenty of survelience in the air in the form of helicopters, adding unmanned drones doesn't seem that big of a move. That said, helicopters generally go where the crime is, instead of generalized survalience, if these drones acted the same way I wouldn't worry. But if they hover around looking for crime, then I worry.

Why, also, do the police need drones? I can see in combat situations where they exist to keep the pilots out of danger (dead technology is worth less than dead people), but I don't see this true in metropolitan areas. I don't think Floridian cities are so crime ridden as to the point where the criminals have an ample supply of shoulder-fired missles. How many police helicopters have been shot down in Miami in the last ten years?

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[c6gunner]

Seriously, I wonder how long it will be before they have to pass a special law making it against the law to shoot these things down?

A special law? Do you have any idea how many existing laws you'd break by shooting down one of these over a populated area? Last I checked the unsafe discharge of a firearm, destruction of government property, and public endangerment are all illegal in most cities/states.

Not to mention that the Department of Homeland Security would probably drop by, looking to "get to know you" in the biblical sense....

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Some_Llama]

"The drug runners business would dry up."

As well as gangs and their warfare. Why doesn't anyone else see this when reports of gang violence on the rise is shown nightly on the news?

Oh yah because our own government has a media campaign aimed at convincing us that drug use makes you a bad person (unless it's pharmaceutical, then it's fine, esp for wieners).

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Some_Llama]

"I really don't see my average pothead freind going to a doctor, then a pharmacy just to get a bag of weed he could probably still got on the street cheaper."

The reality is that all "natural" (i.e. pot, opium, cocaine, herion, etc) can be grown and made by individuals for virtually the cost of dirt and water.

In fact opium poppies are used as natural remedies to ailments in poor countries, you can grind up the poppy and make a tea that relieves constipation, sorrow, sickness symptoms (e.g. flu) and such.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[easyTree]

Your government wants you to be afraid of the gangs - that way you'll turn to them for help and they can exploit you (at the very least financially) in the name of helping you. If they wanted a peaceful and caring society for all, there would be one.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Agripa]

Do you have any idea how many existing laws you'd break by shooting down one of these over a populated area? Last I checked the unsafe discharge of a firearm, destruction of government property, and public endangerment are all illegal in most cities/states.

Just do it the Soviet way: the best defense against a tank is a better tank.

How much monofilament would it take to disable a drone in flight? I have always wanted a reason to apply my embedded design and programming skills to flight and fighting a lost cause.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[armada]

Fact: I have never met someone that does not do drugs because they are illegal. Fact: I do not do drugs quite simply because the risk/reward ratio is not appealing to me. And by risk I mean health risk not jail risk. Full disclosure, I race offroad and supersport motorcycles. In that case risk/reward works out for me. Note to self (I live in Miami) I wonder what the range of my paintball gun is when fired stright up?

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[budgenator]

The Police need the drones because purchasing, Maintaining and operating a helicopter is horrendously expensive.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[DavidShor]

"I say cheaper, since it seems classifying drugs as pharmaceuticals would raise the price, just look at the average cost of American prescriptions."

Once a drug is approved for one use (Say... lymphoma or thyroid cancer), loopholes allow for the drug to be prescribed for "off-label" uses. Such prescriptions become legal, but there can be liability issues if something happens to the patient (And these are mostly skirted if there are any studies to back it up).

For example, anti-depressants are often prescribed to treat ADD, even though they were never (to my knowledge) approved for such. In the same vein, there is no reason to assume that Marijuana would be prescribed for back pain, stress, depression, etcs.

Doctors most likely go along with such requests, happy to receive the office pay premium from insurance companies, and secure in the knowledge that Marijuana's non-toxicity mostly protects them from lawsuits. (If this doesn't seem plausible, see how freely amphetamines and pain killers are prescribed, despite far higher risks)

Obviously, people are not going to all go to their doctor to get some weed. But the number of legal semi-legitimate Marijuana users will drastically increase. Once this hits a critical mass, the means of obtaining Weed for illicit purposes changes drastically. Teenagers will begin to steal from their parent's weed stash, instead of buying from dealers. College students and adults will probably start sharing weed with their friends.

With that, the demand for illegal marijuana production most likely will not be enough to cover fixed costs.

"Why, also, do the police need drones? I can see in combat situations where they exist to keep the pilots out of danger (dead technology is worth less than dead people), but I don't see this true in metropolitan areas. I don't think Floridian cities are so crime ridden as to the point where the criminals have an ample supply of shoulder-fired missiles. How many police helicopters have been shot down in Miami in the last ten years?"

And as a Miami resident, I'll say that Miami has somewhat corrupt local government and a large inflow of Federal Homeland security funds. This leads to a lot of wasteful projects.

More seriously, Miami has a serious problem with urban balkanization, where most of the police belong to extremely small cities (Mine has 300 residents) that exist for tax purposes. The unified Miami-Dade police force has a very hard time projecting its force throughout the country for this reason. So it's not hard to imagine that this is meant to counter that.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[fractoid]

What, are you SOFT ON DRUGS? I'd never vote for you!

<dripping_sarcasm>

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Eivind]

Making something a drug makes it more expensive, true. But legalizing it makes it much cheaper. Pot is kinda a special case since it's a common plant that grows by itself more or less in most climates. There's a reason it's also known as "weed".

But heroin, cocain and the like cost orders of magnitude over production-cost. Because they are illegal and need to be smuggled in or produced in secret at significant risk.

There are two sides to this, damage to the addicts, and to society. The damage to the addicts is similar if they take similar doses of the same drug, actually probably sligthly lower if legalized because of less overdoses from unknown-strength drugs etc.

Damage to society is today tremendous.

Street-price is somewhere around $100/g, yeah it can vary WILDLY over the map as supply and demand fluctuates, but it's a guesstimate as good as any.

A junkie may consume 2g/day, which works out to $6000/month or thelike, which he/she won't be able to finance legally unless they're well-off, especially since using drugs ain't precisely likely to boost your earnings-potential.

So, there are various low-level crimes commited, by the boatload. Damages are typically MUCH higher than the $6000/month, because replacement-cost is much higher than second-hand value on the black market.

A junkie breaks into your car, damaging the lock in the process, and steals your GPS-unit and stereo. You pay $300 for a new similar GPS, $200 for a new similar stereo and $100 to have the car-lock replaced. A loss of $600, plus the time and annoyance-factor. The junike sells the equipment to some shady character for $75, if that. Having caused 8 times the damage, comapred to the cash gained.

If he/she keeps doing that, the damages caused over a month, just to finance the $6000/month drug-addiction adds up to aproximately $50000/month or $600000/year

That is the cost of a SINGLE junkie that finances the drugs with petty theft. A gargantuan sum.

There's no reason to think heroin should be very different in cost from morphine, if both where legalized. A single user-dose costs something like $0.75 so we're talking $1200/year versus $600000/year, a rather significant difference.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[geekoid]

"loopholes allow for the drug to be prescribed for "off-label" uses. "

Those aren't loopholes.

""Why, also, do the police need drones?"
Cost. A police helicopter costs many time the cost of one drone, and is more limited.

Perhaps less energy involved in wild speculation presented as facts, and more energy on thinking and learning would be a good move?

Why don't you say what you want "legalize marijuana"
There is no logical reason for it to be illegal while caffeine, tobacco and alcohol are legal. It's a bunch of back ass religious morons who want this because they are unable to think outside their religious box.

"It's wrong because we say it's wrong"
"Why do you say it's wrong?"
"Becasue it is"
"Why is it wrong?"
"It's wrong because we say it's wrong"

I have never had any desire to do marijuana. It has always been easily available, I've been around it, and I know people who use it.
I still want it removed for the illegal drug list.(to say 'legalize' it is a gross misunderstanding of the legal system. Almost nothing is legalized. There is just a bunch of stuff we do, so of which has been deemed illegal.)

It would be a lot cheaper to buy, it would ahve a regulated amount and quality, it would generate tax revenue, and it would save tax revenue.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Omestes]

I understand that legalized drugs are cheaper, or would be at least, but my main concern in my original post was merely legalizing them as a pharmaceutical. With drugs like marijuana I think a saner course would be legalize-and-regulate like alcohol.

I still cringe at legalizing harder drugs though, even though I do know the damages, and acknowledge the points you bring up. I've known my fair share of addicts and ex-addicts, which I think leads to this. Drugs like heroin, methamphetamines, and crack/cocaine lead to permanent damage in the individuals that use them, besides collateral monetary damages. They can cause permanent physiological and neurological problems, pretty large psychological damage, and negatively effect everyone around them (in ways beyond purely financial harm), and these effects can long lasting to permanent. I don't think the "harder" drugs have any positive consequences, outside of limited medical use (which should be permitted, but only as a last ditch, or for dying patients).

With this in mind, its hard for me to justify the idea that someone should get them legally at a Quicky mart. Most of the users I knew started from a combination of ignorance and social-obligation, they were completely unaware of the real consequences of their actions, even if they had an academic knowledge of the effects. During the hight of their addictions they weren't having fun, but were trapped into it. This also makes it hard for me to concede to the legalization argument, since I think it impossible to make an informed decision regarding these "harder" drugs before the fact, and pretty much impossible (thanks to physical addiction, and drug addled minds) to make one after the fact.

As stated above, I do think that if these drugs have a medical benefit, they should be used in dire cases. And I still don't think we should target junkies and fill our jails with them. But then again I don't think they should ever be totally legalized, even with the financial costs involved, since the individual costs are greater, and longer lasting.

Sorry for such a large reply, this is an issue I've put a lot of thought into, and still have a hard time formulating my opinions on it.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[DavidShor]

I would prefer marijuana to be legal, but I realize that is impossible for political reasons. But the effect of designating Marijuana as a schedule 2 drug would do a great deal to create a viable coalition of supporters that could legalize it in the future.

meanwhile, it would do a lot to end the organized drug trade, as well as reducing the number of tragic arrests. Idealism isnt always responcible.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Eivind]

Noone argues that hard drugs aren't detrimental to health and happiness. They obviously are. So the first choice would be to have noone addicted to them. But you don't -get- that choice.

Some people ARE addicted to them, that's a fact, and not something it's likely we'll be able to change in the next few years. Given this state of things, the question is how we can minimize the damages caused, to the addicts themselves and society at large.

The reason these should be decriminalized is not that they are beneficial. Overall they clearly are not.

The reason is that the alternative is WORSE.

It is quite silly to essentially say, as society today is; these drugs are bad. Therefore we will let each drug-addict cause a million dollars of damage to society every year, most of it ending in the pockets of criminal gangs, rather than supplying the same addict with the drug at a cost to society of perhaps $2000/year.

The destruction to the addict himself is similar in both cases, the second does have the advantage of not forcing him/her into a life of crime, but the physical and psychiological damages of the drug itself remains.

I could see one argument: If criminalizing the drugs actually led to a significantly lower count of addicts, this would be a great benefit. I don't think it does. Most people would certainly not start using heroin even if they could get it in the drug-store. We've tried this for several decades, and it plain does not seem to be working, even a little bit.

It does however bring literally billions of dollars into the coffers of organized crime.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Reziac]

I once hooked a live bat while fishing. I'm wondering if the same principle could be applied. ;)

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Omestes]

This is one of those major pain in the ass questions that will never be answered I feel, like abortion and the death penalty. Probably because there is no really good answer.

I see your reasoning, I'm just not sure if it is actually better, or just the same. I fear if it was legalized it would be a business mans DREAM product, much better than cigarettes, I also still would fear for the collateral damage. People still will be neglecting their children, catching HIV (though a clean needle exchange would help a bit), giving themselves major brain damage, and (most troubling to society at large) being economic drains. Its hard to be a junkie and have a 9-5, thus this money will STILL have to come from somewhere, even if it is less money, and going to less violent sources.

Though, I suppose, we could try it, and repeal it if it didn't work, just like prohibition. Not much harm in that (though I'm sure the commercial opium poppy lobby would buy a fair share of congress critters).

Thanks for the good argument, last time I had this conversation it was with an incoherent libertarian whose whole position was "my body, can do what I want, there are no external consequences that matter!" Sometimes I forget that /. has rational people. :)

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Eivind]

Yeah, I agree. Absent working lasting treatment, junkies will still cause damage and do the same harmful things they do today.

If -ALL- you do is give them heroin (more practically metadon) in the drugstore, then ALL you achieve is:

a) Somewhat increased safety for the junkie due to known strength, quality-tested drugs.

b) About half a million dollars damages to society avoided every year pro junkie.

c) About half a million dollars less financing for criminal groups every year, pro junkie.

The person will as you say likely still be a net drain on society, just a SMALLER drain than he/she used to be.

Position Open: Drone Rigger

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

and that way i can tell dear old mom the next shadow run game is "job research"

"Tragedy struck Miami this morning...

[Anonymous Coward]

...as an unmanned police drone that was following a suspected marijuana user, crash-landed in a public swimming pool."
Headline from the future?

Re:"Tragedy struck Miami this morning...

[iminplaya]

More like "Landing airliner collides with drone. 400 dead. Including 10 on the ground. The drone was mistakenly armed with nuclear weapons and exploded when the drone crashed, killing 50,000 more".

Re:"Tragedy struck Miami this morning...

[ubrgeek]

Great. Now we've got something else we need to accidently ship to Taiwan ... :)

Re:"Tragedy struck Miami this morning...

[AioKits]

Great. Now we've got something else we need to accidently ship to Taiwan ... :) Maybe we can accidently ship just the back halves of these and the Taiwanese can put them together with the nose cones and come up with something REALLY cool?

Re:"Tragedy struck Miami this morning...

[Mysticalfruit]

What are you talking about? These things will probably be made in Taiwan!

The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[DustyShadow]

There's a reason why the Predator stays over the desert. Predators have crashed numerous times and do not have FAA approval to fly over populated areas in the US. Do we really think this thing from Honeywell that most definitely has less flight time than the Predator is air-worthy enough to fly over a super populated area like Miami? If this thing crashes and kills someone, I hope the city is sued into oblivion.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[autocracy]

1. The article states that this is "pending FAA approval"
2. This is only like the Predator in that it is a drone. Since the thing is capable of hovering, it's not the same design at all. See picture in TFA.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[Psmylie]

That's one of the things I was concerned about... What if the thing crashes? Sorry, but the worse case scenario that I can think of, this thing crashing into a busload of kids, is not worth a slight bump in police efficiency.

And that's not even considering the privacy concerns. Sure, I know that public is public and cameras are everywhere, but I think having something capable of following you around with a camera is a much bigger deal than static cameras.

Ooh, that brings up a question... how long until the paparazzi start deploying these things to automate their celebrity-stalking?

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[TripMaster Monkey]

The device featured in the article only weighs 18 pounds fully loaded. While this weight plummeting from a height is sufficient to kill anyone directly below, the risk is much less than that of a Predator drone crashing and burning on the streets of Miami.

I'm more concerned about plans to have drones of this sort fitted with Taser rounds, myself.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[Psmylie]

I woulda read the article first, but I was having trouble pulling it up... it turns out it's only 14 pounds... so I guess a busload of kids wouldn't really be in danger, but individuals still would be. Something that big dropping on your head from even a few feet up could easily kill you.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[mea37]

"Something that big dropping on your head from even a few feet up could easily kill you."

So can a car, but I doubt we'll be outlawing those.

I'm not really convinced either way on the safety of this plan. The FAA will decide whether it's safe enough to approve, and while I don't know that I can trust their judgement 100%, it's far from the first time my safety has been impacted by their decisions.

So, pending more information, I'm not alarmed by the "crashing drones" issue.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[ColdWetDog]

I'm more concerned about plans to have drones of this sort fitted with Taser rounds, myself.

I, for one, welcome our new ... oh to hell with it. This is too close for humor.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one of the things I was concerned about... What if the thing crashes? Sorry, but the worse case scenario that I can think of, this thing crashing into a busload of kids, is not worth a slight bump in police efficiency.

And that's not even considering the privacy concerns. Sure, I know that public is public and cameras are everywhere, but I think having something capable of following you around with a camera is a much bigger deal than static cameras.

Ooh, that brings up a question... how long until the paparazzi start deploying these things to automate their celebrity-stalking?

Crashes? Just wait till interested parties start designing and deploying anti-drone devices including drone hunting drones. Who would be interested parties? Freedom loving Americans for one, organized crime and plain old car thieves and drug dealers for more and of course the already tired of being hunted celebrities. For some reason this piece brought immediately to mind that very old cartoon image of the hillbilly looking up and shouting "Tarrrrrget practice, whoo hoo, tarrrrrget practice" and others appearing behind every tree, rock and blade of grass with their rifles raised and firing away. Wonder how long before individuals are barred from owning remote controled planes and helicopters or numerous items that are involved in the hobby?

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[clampolo]

It doesn't sound as bad as I thought from the title of the article. Seems they are just going to use it for tactical situations. So if there is a hostage situation, they can send up one of these things over the area to get a better view of the situation. Seems pretty useful: if you are sending in a SWAT team, you could quickly notify them if someone with a gun jumped out a window and is hiding in some bushes.

The only danger is that they decide to expand the program and start having these things all over the place. Or what if they use them to videotape people peacefully protesting to get a list of "trouble makers" for the FBI to keep tabs on.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[bkr1_2k]

Cars very rarely, if ever, fall out of the sky because their datalink went dead, or they got a command sent to the wrong vehicle by accident. Several different species of UAV have crashed specifically for this reason, some by completely separate command vehicles and others by the same command vehicle doing training and missions simultaneously.

I'm not saying we should fear this because of safety concerns, but there are plenty of other reasons to keep this thing from flying.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[vertinox]

Get rich quick in Miami:

1. Have friend hide in bushes with a BB gun
2. Have friend shoot drone
3. You run out underneath drone
4. ???? (Survive impact to head most likley)
5. Sue the city
6. Profit!!!

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[Colonel Korn]

I'd say about 20% of car drivers had their "datalink" go dead already. We let those morons drive, so why can't we let evil robots fly?

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[aztektum]

Don't tase me, drone!

Not quite as catchy :(

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[mea37]

Unmanned vehicles very rarely, if ever, crash into pedestrians because the driver is drunk, putting on makeup, or talking on a cell phone. Several different species of car have crashed specifically for this reason.

The question isn't whether they pose new or different risks, but rather whether they pose a higher risk than the background noise. Posts that enumerate nightmare scenarios are nothing but useless scaremongering.

"I'm not saying we should fear this because of safety concerns, but there are plenty of other reasons to keep this thing from flying."

My point exactly. If your real concern isn't safety, yet you choose to talk up the perceived safety risks, then you're trying to bolster your position with FUD.

Knock it off, and get on with the real debate.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[cayenne8]

"The only danger is that they decide to expand the program and start having these things all over the place. Or what if they use them to videotape people peacefully protesting to get a list of "trouble makers" for the FBI to keep tabs on."

What do you mean "if"?

The list of laws and powers that have NOT been escalated and used far beyond their original intent is a very short one indeed.

If they get these, I can assure you they will expand the program to catch all the terrorists, and child abductors. I mean...you wouldn't be against that would you? Sure....we'll just leave them up all the time, all over the place, just in case...

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[bkr1_2k]

Whatever you say... The risk is real, but the likelihood is small and therefore not worth considering in the larger scheme of things.

I'm not trying to bolster my position with anything, FUD or otherwise. I was mostly making fun of someone saying that a car could kill you if dropped from the sky. No one was denying that, but to compare the two is ludicrous.

My position, as I've posted elsewhere, I believe, is that these are bad for reasons other than safety. The constant push for more and more surveillance is bad for personal liberties everywhere. The system, especially in tactical forms like this little beast, is rife with potential for abuse and is often used specifically because of that capability. These will do no actual work in crime prevention, but will be used instead for (great word by the way) scaremongering of people specifically to control populations within a particular geographic area.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[c6gunner]

My position, as I've posted elsewhere, I believe, is that these are bad for reasons other than safety. The constant push for more and more surveillance is bad for personal liberties everywhere. The system, especially in tactical forms like this little beast, is rife with potential for abuse and is often used specifically because of that capability. These will do no actual work in crime prevention, but will be used instead for (great word by the way) scaremongering of people specifically to control populations within a particular geographic area.

Ah. I think your account should have a Warning attached to it:

"This account does no actual work toward enriching discussions, but is used primarily for scaremongering of people specifically to turn populations against new technologies."

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[Al Dimond]

We don't outlaw cars, but we do regulate them heavily because they can easily kill people. We limit their travel to specific paths, limit their speed, require that they stop and yield at various times, etc. People know not to cross busy streets in the middle of traffic, and drivers know not to run red lights. Even though cars are by nature deadly machines it's reasonably safe to walk, run, and cycle in cities because these rules are understood. Even with all this they're still responsible for lots of injuries and deaths, and we put up with that because lots of people find them useful.

Because the drones are controlled by the police they almost certainly won't have to follow any kind of protocol or restrictions in their movement; they have no drivers to hold individually accountable if they mess up and the people most closely responsible will be protected vigorously. To me, this means the devices should have to meet very tough standards of safety and privacy protection. And also reviews for utility. Unless they prove themselves useful there's no reason to take the risk.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[Some_Llama]

"the risk is much less than that of a Predator drone crashing and burning on the streets of Miami."

but if it crashes into one of the many gas stations littering the street of miami?

Or how about a schoolyard? Or a propane station? Or, or, or?

18 pounds might not seem like a lot but at 128mph (top free fall descent speed?) it's sure to cause more damage crashing in a diagonal path rather than straight down?

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[TripMaster Monkey]

To achieve 128 mph, the drone would have to be at an altitude of 1150 feet at the time of failure.

Also, with a top speed of only 50 knots, the trajectory wold be pretty close to vertical at the time of impact.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[budgenator]

A bowling ball weighs 16 pounds and when on is dropped from a freeway overpass it can easily kill or maim someone in a car driving 70MPH. I'm not a knee-jerk naysayer, but failure modes could be a problem.

Airspace.

[Anonymous Coward]

What legal protection of the airspace above my property do I have?

If a drone is flying 500' or 1000', can I shoot it down?

Re:Airspace.

[thrillseeker]

No.

Re:Airspace.

[Deadstick]

No. The navigable airspace over your house has belonged to the federal government since the Air Commerce Act of 1926.

rj

Re:Airspace.

[budgenator]

My pilot friends know where all the houses where the ladies sunbathe naked are and the nudist colonies too. When your outside, your in public and when your in public you have no privacyonly the illusion if it.

Re:Airspace.

[doti]

http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/UsYour.html

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/your.html

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You're-and-Your

Now try again:
http://www.english-zone.com/verbs/your1.html

Why the Canadian border?

[GroeFaZ]

To keep US citizens in?

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[GameboyRMH]

To keep US citizens in? Damn right! We don't want yer kind comin' in and stealin' our jobs and women and hockey tickets! We oughta put up a fence across the whole south border! With barbed wire! And land mines! In fact, forget the fence!

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

THIS is what makes it so obvious that all this "Homeland Security" is primarily *against U.S. Citizens*, not against external threats:

Canada is our FRIEND. Canada has not offered us violence, or a flood of illegal aliens, or a torrent of criminals, or anything worse than the occasional pot smuggler or draft-dodger haven. Canada has been our defense partner for decades, and is consistently our best friend in the world. That Canada is sometimes called "the 51st State" is not entirely a joke.

There is absolutely NO reason that Canadian/U.S. border control should be anything but a smile and a wave whether you're entering or leaving either country -- much as it was through all of the previous century.

The current situation, requiring a passport to visit Canada, tells me that it is WE THE PEOPLE who are regarded as Enemies of the State, and that any border surveillance is designed to keep us in, as much as to keep threats out.

Doesn't *anyone* remember the Iron Curtain or the Berlin Wall??

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Adambomb]

If there was such a proposal, it would be in the guise of catching drug, alcohol, and tobacco smugglers. Theres a seriously huge industry in smuggling alcohol and tobacco into canada due to our massive taxes on the products (Smokers pay through the nose up here, based on the justification that since the government pays out the health claims, they need a return from the higher risk groups.

This makes for a huge amount of smokes and booze coming across the border to canada from the united states.

Then theres the inverse with drugs (for the most part, its bidirectional in cases) as there is a lot of canadian grown marijuana that gets sent down to the northern states from here in canada.

I can see law enforcement on both sides of the border being pleased with this idea. Being able to identify unauthorized crossings is a bit of a plus, the downside is if its effective the smugglers methodology will simply change.

I'm sure there is a wide variety of other ideas they have for the surveillance, theres certainly a lot of evil things that could arise from this, but i can see how people would want to try using the drones in this manner. All depends on who gets their hands on the control room.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[thrillseeker]

the downside is if its effective the smugglers methodology will simply change.

If effective, then the changed methodology will cost the smugglers more - hence economics will reduce the supply.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[LoudMusic]

There is absolutely NO reason that Canadian/U.S. border control should be anything but a smile and a wave whether you're entering or leaving either country -- much as it was through all of the previous century. It's pretty easy to get into Canada, especially from the north, and if you can get into Canada undetected it would then be pretty easy to get into the United States through Montana, North Dakota, or Minnesota.

The security departments aren't trying to protect the United States from Canadians - they're trying to protect the US from people who enter the US through Canada.

Have you ever played Risk, the board game? Just because you have an alliance with your neighbor doesn't mean some jackass can't storm through his territory and blitz your ass.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Adambomb]

Really?

That's what the US thought when it created the lumber tarrifs concerning canadian lumber. All that happened is our lumber industry became more efficient and cost effective than ever, while creating sustainable lumber forests.

Its possible either way though, i'll grant you that.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[NekSnappa]

Wasn't the "Millennium Bomber" trying to enter from Canada?

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[wiggles]

Because Canada has become one of the top exporters of Marijuana to the United States.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Idiomatick]

To keep up appearances. They stated originally upped border security was in response to 911 to keep terrorists out. Since it was a stupid idea mexico was later said to be keeping the borber hoppers out. Canada was left with no real reason to spend billions of dollars on a fence. Hence it gets 1 drone to patrol a 8891km border.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for not holding that whole burning down the Whitehouse thing against us.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[plague3106]

Huh.. I suppose that's why it's been harder and harder to get drugs. Wait, it hasn't been, but drug related violence is up? Hmm.

The only cost will be innocent people being killed.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[metalcoat]

As living in a small city on the border who used to visit Canada often, Ottawa less than an hour away. Passports are an extremely un-welcomed trouble brought to us.

However, many, and I mean many, people get through the borders here will little to no interference. The real problem is the US Border Patrol, stopping everyone on everyday travels. I was stopped 4 times traveling the same route all the same day. They constantly harass you and think they have the absolute right to do whatever the hell they want. It really pisses me off. Not to mention the brand new SUVs they get EVERY year and I'm not exaggerating. What really suprises me is the boats that they use to patrol the St. Lawrence River. Semi-old, and do not stop and question anyone.

One more thing, they seem to hate all Americans that go across the border. They associate our foreign policy with every person. Don't expect to go over there and someone not to try to fight you because "You Americans are all the same." Maybe it's just me, but the more you stick to not having fun you will not have a problem.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[MicktheMech]

It's pretty easy to get into Canada, especially from the north

A.k.a. the Arctic. A bit more difficult than the Rio Grande, not to mention the only threat around the Pole is Russia. That's why we have NORAD. Also, any argument along this line applies equally to Alaska. Furthermore, there are two major vectors for illegal immigrants into Canada. Smugglers from China (which also applies to the U.S. West coast) and believe it or not, illegals entering through the U.S.

The security departments aren't trying to protect the United States from Canadians - they're trying to protect the US from people who enter the US through Canada.

Have you ever played Risk, the board game? Just because you have an alliance with your neighbor doesn't mean some jackass can't storm through his territory and blitz your ass.

This is complete rubish. The only practical effect of the heightened security has been to cost money and jobs on both sides of the border. The only explanation for why it's done is because politicians can score easy points on their "security" record to tout in the next election. Unfortunately it seems to work because most Americans appear to believe that every border is the Mexican border.

Just to top it off, one of the biggest domestic issues here is how to deal with guns being smuggled in from the U.S.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[AnomaliesAndrew]

"To keep US citizens in?" Preparing for the draft :-)

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

"The security departments aren't trying to protect the United States from Canadians - they're trying to protect the US from people who enter the US through Canada."

So ... are you saying Canadians are slackers who'll let just anyone pass through their country?

And if DHS is trying to protect the U.S. from threats coming across the northern border -- why do *Americans* need passports to visit Canada??

It makes no sense from a security standpoint; it just makes it look like they're Doing Something. Anyone bent on entering the U.S. illegally from Canada can just invest in a rowboat and paddle across Rainy Lake. Or wait til it freezes in winter and walk across. (If you've ever been there, you'll know that trying to close off Rainy Lake would be about as effective as trying to secure Vietnam from Cambodia. Big lake, 10 bazillion islands, most heavily treed and large enough to be habitable, and no clear lines of sight anywhere.)

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[JrOldPhart]

~Yea. All of those attacks, uuh, wait, the one attack. Well but, lets give up ALL of our freedom to avoid the possibility of another attack.~

What will we do differently than the builders of the Berlin Wall? The Great Wall of China?

Walls don't work. There is always a way past.

But fear does work to control the masses.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[JrOldPhart]

Legalize it. Tax it.

Legal items are much more easily controlled. Just like the end of prohibition ended most of the black market for liquor.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[greyphi]

Because the current squads of Customs and Border Protection aircraft flying over our borders are more expensive than a similar setup using automated drones.

It's been ongoing for some time now.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/17/border-patrol.html

Haven't all terrorist attacks on US soil come from people with valid US citizenship?
But then I guess security is best established by pointing guns at your neighbours and telling them that you don't trust them.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

"Just to top it off, one of the biggest domestic issues here is how to deal with guns being smuggled in from the U.S."

Let me guess, this started with some new Canadian gun control laws that I don't know about?

=======

Back to the rest of your post... Aside from all the reasons you cite as to why this is rubbish, it can be directly harmful to Americans:

There is at least one place where to get from Point A, Maine, to Point B, Maine, the road passes briefly through Canadian territory (probably because the area is nothing but rocks and there's no other practical route). In the early stages of the new border restrictions, there was a case where an ambulance going from A to B was stopped at the border (where the road kinked into Canada) and held for some time while officialdom figured out what to do. I don't recall whether the person the ambulance was sent for died or not.

"...most Americans appear to believe that every border is the Mexican border."

Actually, no. I can't think of a single person I know who isn't appalled by the stupidity of restricting the U.S./Canadian border. However, Officialdom (which seldom represents the actual Will of the People anymore) is certainly trying to make it APPEAR to be as much of a problem as the Mexican border... ...but just wait til NAFTA and the Corridor makes that a reality!! Can't sneak across the Mexican border? So ride a truck north with your buddy, get off in Winnepeg, and trot back across the Parallel at your leisure (being the central Parallel is a couple thousand miles of nothing-much and no major physical barriers).

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[zippthorne]

Yeah, but you shouldn't alienate your allies just to protect yourself from the threat of enemies who won't respect your allies' borders. I mean, if France had extended the Maginot line to cover its border with Belgium, the trade and political disaster would've been enormous and devastating.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[sponga]

Are you really naive or just a paranoid conspiracy theorist; sorry just sick of the fear mongers around here.

Anyways, anybody who reads the news knows that there is a massive imports of Marijuana.
Now having said that, please give me cheaper weed.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[scionite0]

Yes you hosers!

KEEP OOT!

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

Even if he was, should one idiot change our relationship with our best friend in the world?

And if the guy was an American citizen (I don't recall one way or the other) ... how does an American passport keep him out?

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

An AC says, "Thanks for not holding that whole burning down the Whitehouse thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington) against us."

[grin] Actually, I thought of that... but both countries were still mighty immature; indeed, Canada wasn't yet out of the British nest, thus not entirely responsible for its actions. But we don't hold juvenile humans' acts against them forever; why hold juvenile countries' acts against them either, once they've grown up??

Besides, I vaguely recall that we burned your place down first. :)

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Good song! For the younger crowd, there's always Primus' Electric Uncle Sam from the Antipop album.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[hurfy]

Presumably...after all it DID say North Dakota :)

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[NekSnappa]

But this article isn't about changing our relationship with Canada. It's about using UAV's for surveilling our border. I don't particularly agree with locking down the borders because it's a waste of resources. If some one wants to get in this country illegally they will. I was just responding to way the government might want to keep an eye on the national borders both northern and southern.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[scionite0]

The current situation, requiring a passport to visit Canada

A passport is required to (re)enter the USA.

Canada would be happy to let US citizens/residents into the country with a government ID if we were sure that we could send them home when we got tired of them.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[CSMatt]

Tell that to the "think of the children" groups and everyone else who thinks the government has the right to protect us from ourselves.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[JrOldPhart]

Sadly your are too right. They will willingly sell all of our freedom to insure SAFE slavery for their grandchildren.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[CodeMunch]

No, to keep them out ;) potato potahtoh.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[CSMatt]

I thought NORAD only still existed to track Santa.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[MicktheMech]

Not any more.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

Canada might be happy (quite reasonably so!), but if you were to leave the U.S. without a passport, you could find yourself as a man without a country :(

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

True, but this DOES alter our relationship, by casting suspicions where none existed before :(

Yet we seem to have a policy of mostly turning a blind eye to the southern border, despite that country's *declaration* that they would send all their unwanted people to us, with the INTENT of overwhelming us and taking over. :(

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[toddhisattva]

THIS is what makes it so obvious that all this "Homeland Security" is primarily *against U.S. Citizens* Too bad nobody listened to President Bush when he was against a cabinet-level department.

Actually, it's too bad nobody listens to President Bush.

His speeches are online, and those critics of his who can read, should read them.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

I'm not sure of your point, but...

I used to listen to Bush's speeches. I thought rather more highly of him back-when. I think where things went wrong was when Bush Sr. was no longer there to provide balance.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Jardine]

Besides, I vaguely recall that we burned your place down first. :)

Meh, it was just Toronto (or York at the time).

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Jardine]

The current situation, requiring a passport to visit Canada

Only when flying. You can still drive or boat across the border with the old requirements.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

Hmm. Could be we did you a favour. :)

BTW which part of the Northern Wastes are you from? I used to live in Montana, which is almost the same as Alberta :)

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

I want to see them try to stop me at all if I take a rowboat across Rainy Lake. :D

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Jardine]

BTW which part of the Northern Wastes are you from? I used to live in Montana, which is almost the same as Alberta :)

Near London, Ontario. One thing to keep in mind is that no matter where you're from in Canada, no one really likes Toronto.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

Re Toronto -- So it seems. Everyone I've known from the area has done their utmost to live just about anywhere else. I've heard worse of Montreal, tho, since the Haitian, uh, "imports".

And this makes two folks I know from London Ont. :)

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

"...you shouldn't alienate your allies just to protect yourself from the threat of enemies who won't respect your allies' borders"

Perzactly!!

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[budgenator]

Not too long ago we caught some Chinese Nationals trying to walk through the St. Clair Tunnel to get into the US from Canada. Canada is a sovereign, and they have their on laws and policies that don't match ours, they often allow foreign nationals to become temporary residents that we'd rather not allow into the US. On the other hand there is "a" town that divided by the US/Canadian border the library has a white line painted on the floor to indicate where the border is, and the residents take perverse delight in illegally crossing the border in sight of the surveillance cameras

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[budgenator]

I've got family in London, I'm just down the 402 in Port Huron

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[budgenator]

You don't need a passport to visit Canada, you need the passport to come back from Canada (actually you don't yet but will if you don't have a RealID). This is just a courtesy to the Canadians to keep Canada from filling up with more undesirables like more USians, Viet Nam Draft Dodgers were hard enough on them.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

If you don't want people using a tunnel, don't build the freakin' tunnel in the first place ;)

But there's a simple solution to the illegal alien thing -- execute 'em. Sounds harsh, but it'd put a stop to 99% of 'em right now. (I'm not entirely joking. I live in SoCal and see the effects of the flood of illegals every day.)

Good story about the little white line ... I'm afraid I'd be one of the perverse :)

A Canadian friend just sent me three more such tales that you may enjoy:
==========
The CBC ran something last week about border stupidity. What I remember:

1) A ditch that's the border line. This guy's lawn is Canadian, the road behind his house American. After the new regs came along, he was stopped by border guards who questioned him about his 'illegal border crossing device' - a few planks he'd made into a footbridge and put over the ditch so he could walk his dog along the quieter American-side road. They didn't make him remove the bridge, but they forbade him from ever using it.

2) Some small peninsular town on the West Coast that used to belong to Canada before the Parallel came in. Now it's a tiny political island - divided from the rest of the US by water or Canada. And it's a small cut - if the Parallel was down another arcminute or so the peninsula would be entirely Canadian. So the kids go to school in the States, but have to go through Canada to get there. 4 border crossings a day. Average of about a 30 minute delay per cross. Parents complain that if anything happens, it takes them well over an hour to get to their kids. But what can you do? If fire trucks and ambulances get stopped, they're not going to expedite transit for a school bus.

3) Showing the futility of guarding the border, the reporter filmed a segment on some godforsaken patch where the line is a broken fence older than I am. The reporter was weaving over the line eliberately. Because they weren't trying to hide and were visible from a distant road, they were spotted and questioned by border guards. Though I noticed something they didn't mention: They'd never have been seen if they'd shot the segment 200 feet down where the trees start, or if they weren't deliberately taking their time and filming a segment, or if it was foggy and not sunny.
========

I guess it's time to close down the International Peace Park -- which after all was created to symbolize friendship and unity between the U.S. and Canada.

========

(BTW, I followed your sig's advice last month, as the only option that didn't make me hurl.)

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

I'm planning to move back to Montana, which has rejected RealID. It just occurred to me to wonder... what about the border between Canada, and Montana, as a state that will not require RealID??

Of course, you can always drive a few miles off the Interstate and use some farm road instead ... at least til our gov't gets around to building the new Berlin Wall.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[cthulhu11]

You're forgetting Bryan Adams and Celine Dion. Hard to forgive the canucks for those twho.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

No matter; Stan Rogers more than made up for 'em :)

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[cthulhu11]

Dude. Don't *make* me invoke Shatner! ;)

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Evolt's RonL.]

No. To protect our donuts!

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

"Bones! I! have! finally! learned! punctuation!"

Hmm. I think you're right. Best close the border forthwith!

Umm...

[Oxy the moron]

Shouldn't they have at least *attempted* to disguise it? I'm guessing that picture is going to show up on the local 6pm news. Anyone with a gun or large blunt object could put that thing out of commission somewhat easily... not like it'd be hard to pick it out against the skyline on a typical day.

Re:Umm...

[MozeeToby]

Looking at the pictures, it doesn't appear to be a sustained flight drone. I think what they have in mind here is more like hopping form rooftop to rooftop rather than actually flying behind the suspect. The article says "capable" of hovering; would you ride in an airplane that was described by the media as "cabable" of flying?

As a Pilot i certaintly hope not..

[cybrthng]

I wouldn't want to compete with airspace and or traffic control when these things are up in the air. Its difficult enough to fly vfr and see full size airplanes - try dodging something that isn't meant to be seen or heard? no thanks.

Re:As a Pilot i certaintly hope not..

[bwak]

Well from the description of a "hovering" craft, I doubt that it would really be a competitor for airspace. The only place where a plane would be likely to come even close to the things would be around airports and that would obviously be restricted for the drones.

Re:As a Pilot i certaintly hope not..

[peragrin]

try dodging a police helicopter. Same thing only closer to the ground.

by the way if your flying VFR 500' above Miami city streets your going to go to jail anyways. Hell even at 1000' I would be worried. How tall is the tallest building in miami?

Great

[tweak13]

So if I'm ever flying over Miami in a light plane I can look forward to trying to dodge robotic aircraft that could change direction with no advance warning and tear right through my aircraft. There's a reason you won't see UAV's getting FAA approval anytime soon, they are a serious hazard to air navigation. Visual navigation of aircraft requires just that, vision. Until they have a "see and avoid" system that's foolproof they aren't fit to share airspace where human lives are at stake.

Re:Great

[thrillseeker]

So if I'm ever flying over Miami in a light plane I can look forward to trying to dodge robotic aircraft ... aren't fit to share airspace where human lives are at stake.

What are you doing flying over populated areas in a > 1000 pound aircraft at the low altitudes this < 20 lb object is maneuvering at?

Re:Great

[Walt Dismal]

Top 5 reasons to use drones over Miami:

5) Nude sunbathing: encouraged by Miami PD!

4) It's not noisy enough, we need small jets hovering outside the bedroom window at 3AM chasing pot smokers!

3) Proof of concept that Windows Vista, Mobile Edition is totally safe in unmanned drones, except when the DRM turns on!

2) Easier to catch 93-year men soliciting hookers!

and the #1 reason to use robotic drones:

1) Seagulls, eat leaden death!

Re:Great

[ColdWetDog]

What are you doing flying over populated areas in a > 1000 pound aircraft at the low altitudes this

Smuggling drugs.

Next question, please. (Didn't you ever watch Miami Vice?)

Re:Great

[tweak13]

What are you doing flying over populated areas in a > 1000 pound aircraft at the low altitudes this 20 lb object is maneuvering at?
How about landing? There are plenty of public use airports in and around Miami, some of them sitting right in the middle of residential and business districts this drone might be used in. Obviously landing requires you to get fairly low, so I imagine a runway approach is probably well within the range even this small device could be maneuvering in. Could you imagine driving your car into a 20 pound brick at highway speeds? I'd rather not end up flying my plane into a 20 pound drone.

One Critical Point

[autocracy]

The unit will weigh 14 pounds. This is close to the capsule weight permitted to be launched via balloon with no FAA control. (yay scientific ballooning).

A better question

[OrochimaruVoldemort]

why not the mexican border?

Re:A better question

[Some_Llama]

because they already have them on the mexican border?

FT submitted article... sigh

" 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection has(sic) been flying drones over the Arizona desert and southwest border with Mexico since 2006 and will soon deploy one in North Dakota to patrol the Canadian border as well. "

Miami vice meats T2

[asterix404]

I am thinking this will spawn a whole new movie/tv show genera, even more stunning then robots in disguise and AIs in a Pontiacs/vipers/misc cars. I will call it iVice and it will be good, really...

Re:Miami vice meats T2

[kernowyon]

A call for you on line 2 Mr Asterix404 - its the Apple iLawyers....

Horatio Caine will be pleased

[themushroom]

Because he's only one omnipotent man. *pulling off sunglasses*

Re:Horatio Caine will be pleased

[mamono]

I was surprised to see this as the only CSI reference, and so far down at that. That was the first thing I thought of, well, after Skynet.

Re:Horatio Caine will be pleased

[aadvancedGIR]

Wasn't there a CSI:Manhatan episode with an armed RC helicopter already?

Is it just me?

[zappepcs]

This is going to stop what kind of crime? Are they going to spot bank robbers in their hideout planning to rob banks? Are they going to stop illegals from going to work? What exactly are they planning to stop?

If it's drug crimes.. well, think of the children.... sigh

Oh wait!

"We intend to use this to benefit us in carrying out our mission," he added, saying the wingless Honeywell aircraft, which fits into a backpack and is capable of vertical takeoff and landing, seems ideally suited for use by SWAT teams in hostage situations or dealing with "barricaded subjects." Clearly they are going to use it for drug busts... nice. Wonder where the police departments would spend all that money if they didn't have to fight drug crimes because some of them had been made legal? The espionage on private citizens elevates continuously in the war on drugs, war on crime, war on civil liberties without making anyone safer IMO. They already use helicopters, now this will put the capability of putting an eye in the sky in multiple locations without the expense of a helicopter and raise the danger level to ordinary citizens most likely.

Perhaps I'm cynical, but wasn't the last great advance for police forces the taser? Yep, that worked out pretty good, don't you think?

Re:Is it just me?

[thrillseeker]

wasn't the last great advance for police forces the taser? Yep, that worked out pretty good, don't you think?

Yeah, they should just go back to using one-ounce of lead at high velocity to solve all their problems.

Re:Is it just me?

[Psmylie]

"Perhaps I'm cynical, but wasn't the last great advance for police forces the taser?"

Yeah, except the fact that people can still suffer injury or death from tasers, and that the percieved reduced risk with tasers makes police more likely to use them, even in situations that don't really mandate use of force (don't taze me, bro!) and... oh, wait. You were using sarcasm :)

I agree with you on every point, actually. I'd love to see drugs legalized. Not because I want to use them (I don't, and I won't... I don't like them) but simply because I don't see why it's anyone's business what I put in my body in my own home. In public, while driving or whatever is another deal all together. But we already have laws that cover that (DUI), and that is more than sufficient, in my opinion.

Make drugs legal, regulate them and tax them, use the savings from police enforcement to educate people on the negative side-effects of drugs, and use the tax money to pay for treatment for addicts. You'll get an immediate reduction in crime (meaning more prison space for REAL criminals), less power for organized crime, and nice new revenue streams to treat those that need it... but the only money that should go to the addicts is the money from the drug taxes. Not a single penny from those who abstain should go to support those people.

Re:Is it just me?

[jb68321]

This is going to stop what kind of crime? Are they going to spot bank robbers in their hideout planning to rob banks? Are they going to stop illegals from going to work? What exactly are they planning to stop?
Where I'm from, helicopters are used all the time to prevent police chases (ie tell other cops where to cut the runaway car off) and track criminals running on foot away from crimes (burglaries, hit-and-runs accidents, etc etc). There are plenty of times that criminals run! In fact, they almost always do. And then there's the chase through the neighborhoods and watching the canals/lakes for hours via helicopter. Helicopters are *much* louder than this little thing, with what looks like a 2-stroke model helicopter-type engine.

And the other problem with using manned helicopters in these situations is that, especially at night or in poor weather, this puts the pilots (and people below) at risk. They're flying outside of the Dead Man's Curve, meaning that they cannot safely autorotate to the ground if something happens to their aircraft (say, engine failure). Plus, full helicopters and pilots are more expensive, as I said louder, and take much longer to get to a scene than a portable MAV like this one.

I see all sorts of benefits for the police from my "cop's daughter" perspective. And trust me, a lot more happens in Miami than just simple drug busts! Look up the murder rate sometime, or how about that missing children number.

And one final thing... when did everyone start referring to illegal aliens as "illegals"? It drives me mad. As if they're not people or something! "Aliens" is bad enough, etc, but plenty of my friends growing up either were or had parents who were illegally here (Miami area). And they've got tons of money, own homes & cars, and contribute to society just as everyone else here does. They'd even pay taxes if you'd give them the chance!

Re:Is it just me?

[value_added]

Clearly they are going to use it for drug busts... nice. Wonder where the police departments would spend all that money if they didn't have to fight drug crimes because some of them had been made legal?

In LA, helicopters are routinely used for all sorts of shit that elsewhere would normally be handled by something that doesn't cost a cool million a year to operate. I'd even go so far as to say there's a bizarre love affair with the things. To cite one example, during one of the recent fire seasons, Canada offered cheap deals on airtankers to help out. What did LA do? Get more helicopters.

The only people that hate the damned things are the ordinary folk. You know, the ones that live on the ground in little single story stucco houses. The ones that prefer sleeping through the night without having a racket above their rooftops and search lights lighting up their neighbourhood for hours at a time. Then again, car chases are local sport, so maybe be able to watch live footage of car chases from Sky Chopper 9 makes up for it.

To the extent they could work, drones, by comparison, would be a good thing.

Re:Is it just me?

[MaWeiTao]

I've considered the idea of legalizing drugs many times. In the end I find myself leaning on the side of legalization. The war on drugs has been a waste of money. I think entire drug trade would collapse fairly quickly with legalization much like the end of prohibition hurt organized crime.

There need to be some very strict conditions placed on drug users. This isn't as simple as someone smoking or injecting themselves with whatever they please. Like it or not what drug users do can have in impact on everyone else. The guy occasionally smoking marijuana likely wont affect anyone. However, the cocaine addict likely will.

What happens when a user is incapable of getting a job but requires medical care because of his addiction? Obviously we all have to pay for it.

What about when people start getting it into their heads to sue drug companies because they weren't "aware" of all the negative side-effects? We've known about the dangers of smoking for years, to one extent or another. We might not have known all the details but we knew they were bad; there have been warning labels on the packs for years. And yet people have managed to successfully sue the tobacco companies.

Even with stringent regulations in place it would only be a matter of time before the media starts running sob stories on how drug users aren't receiving adequate care, how they're vilified for their habit, how we need to do more. So in the end if we aren't spending the money fighting drugs we'll be spending it sustaining the system.

I do feel, however, that the crime brought about by illegal drugs is serious enough a problem that the benefits of legalizing drugs outweigh the negatives.

Re:Is it just me?

[Tarantulas]

Yeah, except the fact that people can still suffer injury or death from tasers...

No one has ever been killed by a Taser. There have been plenty of allegations and court trials, but there is no documented evidence that a Taser caused a person's death. The "activists" hang their hats on statements like "the victim was killed after police used a Taser on him." They could say just as easily "The victim died after eating breakfast" and then sue Kellogg's for producing lethal corn flakes.

I visited Taser International and participated in their research program by taking a 15-second ride on the high voltage express. It was unpleasant, and I was almost completely immobilized, but I walked out of the facility and drove home 15 minutes later with no ill effects (and with a new X-26 in hand). And I'm no longer considered a youngster.

As thrillseeker said, law enforcement officers now have a great alternative to using high speed lead projectiles against dangerous subjects. It's preferable to temporarily incapacitate an attacker, rather than killing him. Tasers save lives.

Re:Is it just me?

[Psmylie]

"No one has ever been killed by a Taser"

Really? I stand corrected then, and apologize for passing on bad information. However, I still stand by what I said... since it is "non-lethal", people are more likely to use it when the situation doesn't warrant it. Someone being upset, obnoxious or disruptive does not, in my opinion, warrant the pain and humiliation of a tazering.

The same can be said of pepper spray, rubber bullets, etc., and not just tasers... especially since it's not just trained officers who have access to some of these "non-lethals".

Also, it would probably be more accurate to say that nobody has been killed by a taser "yet". It's just a matter of time before something happens to change that (someone prone to heart attacks or seizures, maybe). However, I agree whole-heartedly that having non-lethal options for officers is better than just guns and night sticks.

Re:Is it just me?

[Some_Llama]

I understand your fears but i am here to help you understand that people are already doing drugs, a lot of them, all the time, you probably know several people who use but would never tell you because of fear of being ostracized.

Thinking that people will do MORE drugs if they become legal is an oft thought fallacy that is misused by propaganda. Drugs are already widely available all around us and cheaper and purer than they were in the 70s (legal AND illegal mind you), drug use will not go up, if anything it would go down due to removing the stigma of being a "bad boy/girl".

furthermore, the problems associated with drug use are mainly because of it's legal status, i know many people who use drugs regularly who hold down well paying jobs with a high level of responsibility.

and not just pot.. opium, ectasy, lsd, etc.. but if they got caught with these they would be thrown in jail, lose their jobs and then become a drain on society.

Re:Is it just me?

[Agripa]

Clearly they are going to use it for drug busts

Maybe they will go the Philadelphia route and use them to drop fire bombs on people they do not like.

Re:Is it just me?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Yeah, because a big helicopter is much safer than a small drone. There is no reason that RC aircraft can't be made/maintained to the same standards as normal aircraft and still be insanely cheaper, more reliable (less parts), and safer (less mass and no pilot to worry about). I'd be much more worried about driving to work etc.

And so beings the drone wars

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If these drones become wide-spread, I predict that any sophisticated "bad guys" - i.e. drug runners and coyotes - will quickly get their own drones.

Maybe they won't be equipped with cameras, they'll probably be just run of the mill R/C helicopters. But they will be sufficient to take out any drones within visible range - just crash the R/C helicopter into the police drone to take it out of commission. If you miss, you just come back for another pass. Worst case, you keep the drone busy dodging the R/C helicopter instead of watching the goings on and best case you get a firey explosion in the sky. It will only take a few $500 R/C helicopter versus $50,000+ drone encounters before the police run out of drones.

Re:And so beings the drone wars

[ChrisA90278]

Why bother with an R/C aircraft? A hunting rifle with a scope would kill a drone a lot easier. A more sophisticaled attack would be to jam the drones's radio reciever so it could not be commanded from the ground.

Actually I think these will be used just like helicopers are used but maybe at 10X less cost.

Re:And so beings the drone wars

[ShaunC]

If these drones become wide-spread, I predict that any sophisticated "bad guys" - i.e. drug runners and coyotes - will quickly get their own drones.

No doubt. The Coast Guard is already finding submarines , some remote-controlled, operated by drug smugglers. If they can afford million-dollar subs, it won't be long before they get their hands on some $50K drones.

On the plus side, imagine if a drone full of pot crash-landed in your backyard. Talk about finders keepers! :)

Re:And so beings the drone wars

[grantek]

Hey, now that's not a bad idea you're onto. Consider:
- In a tense situation, bad guys are relatively unlikely to shoot human cops
- Police may want the most flexibility/control over a situation
- Throw in some targets that harass the stressed bad guys but, if shot, don't hurt cops
- Use gunfire as "direct threat" justification for moving in and blowing 'em away

Re:And so beings the drone wars

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Why not simply shoot the drone from the ground, then? No need to bother with RC helis, as fun as that sounds. Also, I think if that did become a problem, it wouldn't be too long before they simply use an RF jammer, and you're screwed, unless you turn your RC heli into an automated drone, too, which isn't that easy at the moment.

Re:And so beings the drone wars

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Yeah, because it's always obvious where the shooter is, right?

Just a bad idea from a safty standpoint

[Frosty Piss]

The first time one of these things smacks a commercial jet, it's going to be the end of this madness. The lawyers will have a field day, and the city's tax dollars will pay out millions. Oh, they will tell you there are "safeguards" and so on. But it will happen.

Re:Just a bad idea from a safty standpoint

[TooMuchToDo]

Very true. Eventually, drones will be equipped with ADS-B (the new air traffic control system that relies on GPS for every aircraft in the area to announce it's position to every other aircraft in the area and the ground) and this won't be as big of a problem (once you can be completely aware of your surroundings, such as with what ADS-B provides, you can make decisions based on that data with software).

http://www.adsb.gov/

Re:Just a bad idea from a safty standpoint

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Doesn't seem to be much of a problem in the RC aircraft world. I think it would be less of a problem in this case, as they can easily inform whoever needs to know.

Re:Just a bad idea from a safty standpoint

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Perhaps you should check out YouTube sometime.

Re:Just a bad idea from a safty standpoint

[Slashdot Parent]

The first time one of these things smacks a commercial jet, it's going to be the end of this madness. Dude, the drones weigh 14 lbs. They pose about as much of a threat to commercial aviation as a rogue goose.

i41

[arbitraryaardvark]

I for one welcome our new robot overflying predators.
What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.wickedlasers.com/

They didn't show the stealth attachment

[GameboyRMH]

They'll hang a cardboard cutout from the bottom of it that looks like a seagull. Then nobody will be able to prove that the fuzzy thing they have on film is a UAV.

"Look! I taped it this time, there it is!"

"That's not a UAV, it's obviously a seagull."

"Well what's that thing on top?"

"It's a weather balloon"

"Tied to the seagull's back?"

"Yes, it's obviously part of a wildlife experiment in seagull migration"

"That's ridiculous!"

"And you mean to tell me that the government's spying on you for no reason? Man, you're paranoid."

"It's a UAV I tell you! It's out there in that exact spot EVERY DAY!"

"Pfft, you need to chill dude. Crack open a cold one and watch some TV. TV's good."

Re:They didn't show the stealth attachment

[moosesocks]

"That's not a UAV, it's obviously a seagull." African or European?

That's OK.

[thewils]

I'll just have to remember to pack my crowbar when I go out.

But...

[downix]

Does it run Linux?

Wrong Relationship

[Ben Justice]

Actually, it's not the "latest chapter in the developing relationship between law enforcement and robotic assistants". It's the latest chapter in the developing relationship between U.S. lawmakers and their corporate benefactors. --bj

Altitude

[wiredog]

How high do the R/C craft fly? How high are the drones flying? How hard is it to fly an r/c aircraft into a drone, given parallax?

Re:Altitude

[JrOldPhart]

How high do the R/C craft fly?

Higher than an operator can see the radio is line of sight. So up is no issue other than for the operator.

How high are the drones flying?

Probably the same limit.

How hard is it to fly an r/c aircraft into a drone, given parallax?

Add a cheap b/w camera, transmitter and receiver then you have Drugger-Drone. You saw it here first I claim prior art...

Deja vu all over again

[More_Cowbell]

I thought this sounded a bit familiar.

Has anyone heard any news on the LA ones, success or failure?

Personally, I'm not a big fan of more surveillance, though it seems inevitable. What politician (local or national) would stand up and say more cameras in (fill in the blank - schools, roads, public places, etc) is a bad idea. I mean it's all for our safety right? Think of the children and all that?

At least with the stationary cameras you know when you are being monitored.

Take 'em Out

[PingXao]

I don't know how but I would hope responsible citizens would wake the fuck up and start to see the actual machinery of a police state for what it is. These drones are HUGELY expensive. They're flying them at ridiculous cost over the southwest to find and track illegal aliens? Are you fucking kidding me? That money could be better spent actually enforcing the laws that are on the books against employers hiring them in the first place. The cognitive dissonance here is mind-boggling. It proves the point that these drones are subject to mission creep like every other super expensive tech toy you give to the government. Wake up people. These drones will extend their control over your lives over the next few decades unless responsible people start saying, "No." All it takes is one evildoer inside the government (not like that's ever happened before) to flip a switch, and all of a sudden these things are looking at YOU because, after all, if you're innocent what do you have to hide? Right, Governor Spitzer?

Re:Take 'em Out

[hoppo]

I don't know how but I would hope responsible citizens would wake the fuck up and start to see the actual machinery of a police state for what it is.

See, that's where you are mistaken. There are very few citizens left in the Miami area, and almost none in the city of Miami. So it's a police state over a bunch of foreign nationals. Big deal.

Could be worse...

[Dareth]

It could be much worse than hellfire missiles. Just hope the drone doesn't use "helicopter batteries"!

In use in Amsterdam

[Teun]

I don't want to melt an unsuspecting blogger's server so I'll just say search for Amsterdam police uses drone.

In the blog is a link to a BBC clip showing the drone like used in Amsterdam.
It is build by "Microdrones" in Germany and costs around $2,000.

Re:In use in Amsterdam

[Missing_dc]

Before we go starting rumors, the units are about 60grand a piece, but they rent for 2grand a month, they have 20 minutes flight time, are nearly silent (65 DB@ 9ft), the radio is either GSM or 2.4GHz and they can carry about 2 lbs.

Parachutes?

[MrSteveSD]

Perhaps they can fit them with little Parachutes in case of power failure.

Drone arrest..

[darkob]

I wonder when will first "drone arrest" happend in the USA? In Iraq I remember some Iraqi army units surrendered to the overfying US drone so there's obviously a clear precedent.

Dogfights

[UberHoser]

How long will it take for the 'other' side to come up with their version of Armed RC choppers & planes..

Think of a RC Airwolf..

'Cue music'

Re:Dogfights

[GungaDan]

RC Blue Thunder laughs at your wussy airwolf. :P

Re:Dogfights

[f8l_0e]

::blinks:: Whoa. For a second I thought my dad was posting on /.

Re:Dogfights

[call-me-kenneth]

...and I for one can't wait. Just let me get a couple of six-packs and some late-night surveillance footage shows on cable TV...

Re:Dogfights

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Two words: Radio jammer.

When your drone can be fully automated and you have high-tech military RF toys to play with, RC things aren't too much of a problem, I would have thought.

Re:Dogfights

[IdeaMan]

Use IR to control the defender instead of radio.
The surveillance drone is more susceptible to being jammed since it has to use radio. In fact that's probably recommended to prevent the human from maneuvering it to evade interception. There are ways to make the radio link impossible to jam (spread spectrum), however if they do that then shooting it down is that much bigger of a prize just because of the expense involved. All you need to do is shoot down 1 or 2 of them and they'll have to quit because the things are so darn expensive.

It would be interesting to play with an RC rocket for this usage scenario. I once made a shoulder fired rocket launching box. It worked but even with a very large shield in front still made me cough from the exhaust gases.

Re:Dogfights

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I don't know of any reliable IR systems. As for the drone, it depends on the design of it. Also, I'm not sure it's impossible to jam spread spectrum if you have the right stuff. Any links saying otherwise?

Either way, I highly doubt that people taking these things out is going to be a big problem.

Re:Dogfights

[IdeaMan]

I think it comes down to cost.
It would be way cheaper and easier to shoot down a low altitude drone than to pay for development of a spread spectrum signal jammer capable of masking a signal engineered to be resistant to jamming. If we're talking high altitude that's a different story. I wonder though, are there any EMP weapons that can be fit onto a small rocket that would have more range than an explosive?

If you're trying to jam, it boils down to three things: how far you are from the two signal endpoints, how much power you have, and how fast/smart your equipment is versus the enemies equipment.

I don't think they will get taken out though... after all we still have speed cameras, and they're dead easy to disable.

Re:Dogfights

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Sorry, when I talked about the radio jammer, I was meaning that if people started to fly RC aircraft into the police drones or became a problem in general, I'm sure law enforcement would make sure they had jammers available, rather than people using jammers against the police drones. I think you are right in that it would be hard for normal people to jam a spread spectrum system, but the US military seems to have lots of toys and money, and I'm guessing they'd be able to help out in that area.

As for the comparison to speed cameras, I think that's a bit unfair, as I get the impression that a ground team will always be close by with the drones. Otherwise, it would be a different story.

All this talk reminds me of a video where some guy bolted a shotgun to his RC heli. I'm sure it's on YouTube somewhere. Perhaps it might turn out to be a problem after all. ;)

The Real Danger

[AustenHeller]

I don't think aerial drones are really going to change law enforcement significantly. Sure, it'll make their job easier and cheaper, but it's not really letting cops do more than they're already capable of doing.

The real threat of this type of technology is the atmosphere they create. "Beware the flying cameras! We're always up there, watching you... Don't mess up." That culture of fear is what really robs us of our civil liberties.

Re:The Real Danger

[AmishElvis]

The city should use a squadron of UAVs to provide real-time 24/7 coverage of the entire area. They should also stream the UAV feeds in real time over the web so that any citizen has access to them. Keep the video in publicly available archives. That way the police can use them to track drug dealers, and citizens can use them to keep an eye out for police brutality. I'm not sure how to keep drug dealers from tracking the police. Maybe delay the public release of the videos by 2 hours or so. Any ideas?

Hmmm, they look kinad familiar....

[Tmack]

Oh yeh... take a look:

Miami's Drone

vs

the Imperial Probe Droia

you decide...

tm

As a pilot myself...

[Nick Driver]

...I can say that as long as these things stay at or below about 300' AGL and completely stay 100% out of the airspace (at *any* height AGL) within a 4 nautical mile radius of any airport's traffic pattern, then they will not pose any substantial threat to most manned aircraft. The only exception being medivac helicopters, which can be flying low over any part of a populated area. A rule would need to be enforced that whenever a medivac chopper is in the area, the drones must be landed immediately, regardless of whatever mission they were currently flying... that mission would need to execute an immediate abort.

Now having said that, I do have suspicions that many law enforcement operators of such drones may have a disturbing propensity to disregard the rules of air safety whenever the rules get in the way of their wishes.

BTW, it is commonplace, and recommended, that a small general aviation aircraft be flown at 1000' AGL while flying over densely populated areas. The airspace from 500' AGL to 1000' AGL should be kept off-limits from drones, since that is a safety margin for small fixed-wing aircraft, and also typically where helicopters will be flying too.

Re:As a pilot myself...

[tweak13]

I'd agree with pretty much everything you've said here. As long as they're kept out of all controlled airspace of any type, and stay away from airports, heliports, and every other place you'd expect to see low altitude operations then I don't have a huge problem with it. As much as I hate to propose additional rules to solve a problem, I think it might be worth it to reclassify the current uncontrolled airspace to keep drones out of most of it. For anybody not in the know, uncontrolled airspace extends up to 1,200 feet above ground over much of the US. It's lower in some places, mostly around airports, and in some cases controlled airspace extends all the way to the ground. Rules are somewhat relaxed concerning what is allowed in uncontrolled airspace, and I imagine most drones would probably be operating in uncontrolled airspace. The problem is there are plenty of aircraft also operating in that airspace. I've personally done some photography work in uncontrolled airspace. Pipeline surveys, aerial searches, helicopter tours, these activities frequently occur under 1000 feet. Obviously automated and human controlled drones are going to be a big thing in the future and somebody is going to have to come up with a good way to keep them from killing people, hopefully before it actually happens.

Bright future of UAVs/MAVs

[anushandhan]

It wasn't very clear from the article how this thing manages to fly and what is its endurance. From the images included it looks like a ducted rotor/fan based design. UAVs like these certainly provide better situational awareness for police/law enforcement operations by providing "over the hill" reconnaissance.

DARPA has been pumping in lot of money to Universities and research agencies for development of MAVs (Micro Air Vehicles), vehicles of much smaller dimension than the drone mentioned in this article, with endurance of at least 30 minutes. Some of these proposed MAVs are trying to mimic bird or insect flight mechanisms to attain comparable efficiency in flying slowly or hovering at one position, which is the primary requirement for the possible missions to be undertaken by these machines. Certainly in future we are going to see many such UAVs/MAVs manning the city/battlefield air-space for one reason or the other.

Triple-A

[IdeaMan]

We need AAA for these things.

They would show up on radar, so load up that shotgun with an explosive slug and slave it to radar prediction.
For bonus points put enough smarts in the slug to receive its time delay from the radar.

With current electronics miniaturization, wouldn't this whole package fit in a backpack?

It'd be easy to test this: Just take it out during duck hunting season and come home with 100 birds hehe.

There are two ways to do this: you could project both an aim point onto a HUD, or you could use servos to aim the gun.
The HUD is probably smaller and less weight, and useful for any weapon you can strap an aimpoint sensor on. The servo approach is heavier but more reliable and accurate.

Hmmm, I wonder if this would enable foot soldiers taking out stuff like hand grenades and mortars.

Seriously!

[eheldreth]

It's like some one ate 1984 for lunch and through up on the constitution. Right to privacy my A$$. What's next an unmanned drone with an RFID reader so they can process your chip. Forget papers please, it'll be show me your arm. The police are not a military force and should not be given this type of power and equipment. It's an affront to a free society and if the people of Florida stand for this it will be a dark chapter in our nations history. Alright, sorry for the rant. I feel much better now, really. Hey who are those guys in black suits at my door.

Finally, something to shoot at.

[Anonymous Coward]

Drone will look great mounted above my fireplace.

Long Live The Priest

[xtracto]

Up here in space
Im looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do

You think youve private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
Im watching all the time

Im made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

Im elected electric spy
Im protected electric eye

Always in focus
You cant feel my stare
I zoom into you
You dont know Im there

I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove

Im made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

Im elected electric spy
Im protected electric eye

Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
Theres nothing you can do about it
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows

Im made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

Im elected electric spy
Im protected electric eye

Protected. detective. electric eye

Chicago's first helicopter

[lpangelrob]

That reminds me of Chicago's first police department helicopter - revealed June 2007. (news article)

Helicopters and drones are both useful for those on-foot police chases, carjacking incidents and general surveillance (can't let those riots get too out of hand!).

And now...

[192939495969798999]

Who else thought of this when seeing that picture:
"And, now Your Highness, we will discuss the location of your
hidden Rebel base...
wowowowowowowowowow"

Frog gigging

[Ethanol-fueled]

What happens when you cut its strings(jam the signal)? Will it have a hover failsafe, or will it fall straight to the ground? That could become a new sport similar to frog giggin': first you jam the signal(shine the flashlight into its eyes), then you spear it(shoot it down). You could then cook it in a fire or mount it on the wall as a trophy.

Re:Frog gigging

[saider]

RADAR TECH - (he is making the sound effects) Shit. (makes more sound effects and dials phone) Sir? (in microphone)

COL SANDURZ - What is it?

RADAR TECH - (in microphone) Can I talk to for a minute, please, sir.

COL SANDURZ and DARK HELMET walk over to him

COL SANDURZ - Well.

RADAR TECH. (in microphone) I'm having trouble with the radar, sir.

COL SANDURZ - You don't need that, Private, we're right here. (hangs up microphone) Now, what is it?

RADAR TECH. (in microphone voice) I'm having trouble with radar, sir.

DARK HELMET (rips out the microphone) Now, what is it?

RADAR TECH - (normal voice) I'm having trouble with the radar, sir.

DARK HELMET - What's wrong with it?

RADAR TECH - I've lost the bleeps, I've the lost the sweeps, and I've lost the creeps.

DARK HELMET - The what?

COL SANDURZ - The what?

DARK HELMET - And the what?

RADAR TECH - You know. The bleeps, (makes bleeps sounds) the sweeps, (makes sweeps sounds) and the creeps. (makes creeps sounds)

DARK HELMET - (to Sandurz) That's not all he's lost.

RADAR TECH - Sir. The radar, sir. It appears to be....

Jam starts dripping down the screen.

RADAR TECH - ...jammed.

DARK HELMET - Jammed? (takes a taste of the jam) Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry. (pulls down mask) Lone Starr!

Re:Frog gigging

[cayenne8]

"What happens when you cut its strings(jam the signal)? Will it have a hover failsafe, or will it fall straight to the ground? That could become a new sport similar to frog giggin' [wikipedia.org]: first you jam the signal(shine the flashlight into its eyes), then you spear it(shoot it down). You could then cook it in a fire or mount it on the wall as a trophy."

Even better, especially if they start flying these things over us down south.

First thing you say when you see one fly over you....."PULL"!!

Re:Frog gigging

[Some_Llama]

I would think in the absence of signal it would be designed to keep current altitude and then circle in widening patterns until it got a new signal, i mean they obviously have to plan for sporadic interference anyway, this would seem the most logical design?

Re:Frog gigging

[drinkypoo]

What happens when you cut its strings(jam the signal)? Will it have a hover failsafe, or will it fall straight to the ground?

It doesn't matter unless they somehow use a mechanical failsafe - not impossible but so unlikely it doesn't actually even bear mentioning.

It doesn't matter, because you can use a HERF weapon (search for "HERF", watch the video... I haven't, but anyway) to confuse the thing. Just point a sufficiently strong HERF at it, the antenna will pick up the signal nicely, and channel the information straight into the receiver, which will deliver it unto the rest of the system. Radio controlled vehicle gyros are all electronic.

Re:Frog gigging

[Agripa]

I'm wondering if it will be immune to a blast from a microwave oven with the door removed.

Only if it flies into it.

Even with a good beam antenna, shielding versus damaging EMI is not prohibitively difficult or expensive and I certainly would have thought of it so the designers probably did also. You could interfere with the radio link or the GPS receiver though.

Re:Frog gigging

[budgenator]

Oh hell no, that's just plain too sloppy for a news for nerds website. You gotta gut the microwave and hook the parts up to a satellite TV dish, and build a launcher like in "jeepers creepers" that shoots a net! Then you go hunting, first you dazzel that suxor with the micro-dish, then you snag it with the net.

Re:Frog gigging

[penix1]

first you dazzel that suxor with the micro-dish, then you snag it with the net.

You forgot the last step....

3. Then you sell it on eBay...
4. ???
5. Profit!

A tip for those drones

[QuantumFTL]

I certainly don't mind if those drones are flying around me - I just hope they do not look directly into my laser with their remaining eye... *grin*

Article on one page, not 3!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN1929797920080326
I wish article submitters, or the editors, would publish stuff on /. linking to the 1 page versions of articles. That whole trick of spreading an article over many pages just for ad impressions is just BS!

Re:Article on one page, not 3!

[phantomcircuit]

Maybe next time you criticize you could get it right yourself? http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1929797920080326?sp=true

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[scubamage]

When you have to show your ID to go down the street, get validation from the US central database about your working at your current employer, and have every conversation logged and picked apart by the government you'll be thinking, "man, maybe those ACLU guys were right..." when someone comes to black bag you. But its ok, because the 'war on crime,' 'war on drugs,' and war on 'terrorism' will justify it... nevermind the fact that you can't really win a war on an idea.

Video of the droid.

[f8l_0e]

Here. It's a ducted fan design. I didn't see any flight length info (probably classified). Although they do mention it has an operational ceiling of 10,500 feet (their goes anyone's idea of hitting it with an rc copter) and that it can store 100 waypoints in it's flight plan.

Re:Video of the droid.

[JrOldPhart]

10,500' is the service celling of a Cessna 150. An R/C helicopter has a WAY better power to weight ratio.

The only issue would be the ability of the operator to see it. Add a camera, problem solved. Parallax solved also.

But then the drone won't see its target very well from nearly two miles. So it will need to decent to easy 30-06 range.

Re:Video of the droid.

[f8l_0e]

Obviously power to weight ratio is not the only thing that needs to be considered if the drone can reach that height. Other factors include operating range of the RC transceiver. Video transmission doesn't seem to be a problem. You can find a professional transmitter that can broadcast up to 2 miles LOS (though if your flying in the city LOS may be an issue). Then there's the issue of depth of field, or lack thereof. Aiming at an moving object with no concept of your distance from it is difficult. Then their wind to contend with which can vary a great amount at that altitude. It's not a issue for the drone because it is computer controlled and can compensate. If you could find a rc heli pilot that thinks they could pull it off, I'd love to hear about it.

Re:Video of the droid.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

How about you just use a gyro-stabilised platform, like all the RC photography and video guys do? There are all sorts of computer-controlled stabilisation systems for RC aircraft out there. Unless this drone has some super-high-tech avionics, I'm pretty sure a hobby-grade RC heli with a few add-ons would be able to match those capabilities.

Of course, I agree with you in general. This drone has be designed for a purpose and probably does the job better than a tradition RC heli setup.

Re:Video of the droid.

[JrOldPhart]

Gyros have been available for R/C helicopters since, at least, the 80's. They are not easy to fly even with. Actually the best take-down method, if a dirigible device is desired would be an R/C airplane. Just because the target can hover, there is no need for the countermeasure to hover.

Re:Video of the droid.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Modern piezoelectric gyros make it much easier to fly RC helis -- not having to worry about the tail makes a difference. Adding them to a camera platform helps keep it smooth. Add in auto-pilot systems, and you can hover hands-free while you operate the camera.

I'm not sure what you mean about the take-down side of things. Perhaps I'm getting confused with another thread? I'm just talking about surveillance in this case.

Re:Video of the droid.

[JrOldPhart]

My "take-down " was with relation to the use of an R/C helicopter as a counter measure, for the targets of this system to kill these surveillance systems, not replacement of the system.
But, you are very correct; an R/C heli system could replace the system in the article at probably half the cost. And with no degradation in specifications.

I'm guessing the swat boys simply wanted a new toy to play soldier with.

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[Bryansix]

I knew I would draw out the kooks. I know there is a line to be drawn. However public surveilance isn't where it's at. What if they just put a helicopter in the air? Would it not see the same things that these drones see? Why use the drones? Cost and Manpower. That's it. This isn't a privacy issue. When they start checking my ID everywhere I go and making people validate in a database to get a job then I'll say something. You might say that will be too late but I don't think so. This issue is pretty clear cut. Watching what I do in public is fine so long as you don't interfere in people's daily lives when they aren't committing crimes.

UAV's vs. Web 2.0

[heroine]

The story about UAV's got 3 times the comments as the story about Javascript, but what do you do for a living? If only the stuff that mattered most was also the stuff that made the most money.

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[scubamage]

You realize our rights towards privacy are meant to protect people, and not just places where people might be, correct?

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[f8l_0e]

nevermind the fact that you can't really win a war on an idea. I only wish that were true. Freedom, Democracy, and critical thinking are all ideas that the current administration, and an upsetting percentage of the U.S. population, have managed lay to waste.

It's really noisy

[trailerparkcassanova]

I worked at the HI facility in ABQ where this was developed and we called it a flying leaf blower. The noise will inspire anyone to blast it out of the sky.

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[muellerr1]

Your post smells trollish, but I'll answer anyway. The ACLU statement was that they'd like to see the use of these things regulated so they aren't used to violate your rights. They are not categorically opposed to its use.

The goal of the ACLU isn't to make it easier to commit crimes, it is to ensure that you don't lose your rights to the pursuit of criminals. Sure, a police state would be easier to run and traditional crime might plummet, but is that really the kind of country you want to call your own?

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[Bryansix]

You realize that there is no such thing as the "Right to Privacy" as much as there is a "Right to be secure in your belongings". In otherwords, if they keep hands off and you are in public you are SOL to fight anybody from watching you or taking your picture. I know because I'm a photographer in my free time. People try to infringe on photographer's rights all the time but the Constitution makes it clear that freedom of the press is ACTUALLY a right.

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[Bryansix]

I really could care less if the US started looking like the UK as far as public camera go. So long as we don't install speed cameras too. I'm violently opposed to the stupid speed laws.

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[scubamage]

The SCOTUS disagrees with you in Katz v. US.

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[Bryansix]

I forgot that SCOTUS belongs to the legaslative branch.

FAA

[memnock]

why does anyone think the FAA will bother with a serious consideration of regulation? most federal regulatory agencies rubber stamp anything the corporations or king george wants.

it's hard to say i disagree with this idea totally, since helicopters have been in use for a long time and there doesn't seem to be much of a difference, but i'm not a big supporter of it. i guess my major point of contention is that this is another implementation of military equipment in civilian situations.

i guess one bright side to this would be that the drones are probably better for the environment, since they'll probably use less fuel/energy.

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[Bryansix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

This case had to do with wiretaps. The reasoning is that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Note that in this case I think that argument if crap but whatever. For sure people who make calls from their home or a cell phone while in their car would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's fine. That has nothing to do with taking a picture of him while he's in the phone booth. The thing he would expect privacy in would be his conversation. He should know full well that he's standing in a glass case and everyone can see him (including the drone hovering 500 feet above his head and slightly off to the side).

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[JrOldPhart]

Yea, we should all be forced to go the speed I want to go. Any one going faster is crazy, any one slower is an ass hole. -Sam kinision (I think)

We also need cameras in bedrooms, just to be sure that Gods laws are not being violated.

It depends on who is watching weather or not you are safe from persecution. Maybe it is that kid you made fun of back in 5th grade and he is still angry. Maybe you just look like the bully, that is OK you are probably a jerk just like him.

Not sure I like the direction we are heading.

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[scubamage]

They don't, but they are the sole arbiters and interpreters of the constitution. In Katz they ruled that the fourth amendment protects people in any situation where they feel they would have a reasonable expectation to privacy, which can include anything from whispering to speaking guardedly in a phone booth with the door shut. EG: we do have a right to privacy so far as the 4th amendment, and it is also held that a right to privacy is inherent in common law. I believe you are reading the constitution incorrectly - it does not list what rights people have, but what rights the government does not have.

Theres a much cheaper alternative

[scubamage]

How about we all just deal with mandated curfews. We have an alotted amount of time to get from home to work, and then return. All weekend plans, bar trips, etc, must be approved by your local DHS mogul. Anyone found outside their allowed zone is to be shot on sight because they're obviously a terrorist. I mean, seems like it'll be a lot cheaper than flying a bunch of drones all over the place.

Re:Theres a much cheaper alternative

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

But how does that work as an alternative to police helicopters? Or are you just as paranoid about them?

Re:Theres a much cheaper alternative

[scubamage]

Well if they know where we are at all times, and are kept under constant surveillance we really don't need police helicopters :)

Re:Theres a much cheaper alternative

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I just don't think it's a real problem. I doubt these things would ever be intended to be so numerous that they'll be able to track anyone, anytime, like a CCTV setup. It would probably be too impractical (for the moment, at least).

How do you say....

[Bayoudegradeable]

Como se dice "I'm gonna bust a cap in your drone" en Espanol? How much small arms fire can that sucker take?

Re:Use the right Buckshot

[couchslug]

It's simple enough to fly above shotgun range. If UAVs were easy to hit, Hadji would be downing them in Iraq and A-stan.

Return To Base Failsafe

[clbyjack81]

What happens when you cut its strings(jam the signal)? Will it have a hover failsafe, or will it fall straight to the ground?

Considering that there are commercial autopilots for radio control vehicles already that can return the vehicle to the take-off GPS coordinates, it seems that a company as large as Honeywell would have thought about how to get the UAV back to the 'base' in the event of a radio failure.

Yes, but what about the 5 questions?

[turkeyfish]

Yes, as our consitutional rights diminish and armed police drones hover at every street corner dictating what we can and can not do, where we can and can not go, who we can and can not meet. We will be "safe" alright, but not from our "overlords".

Five questions?

1. Why is it that when a story of significant implications appears on /. and other similar websites the first few reponses are invariably a goofy, thoughtless joke that deflects serious communal thinking of the consequences of the story into the looney bin, suggesting that American political dialog is now all about gossip and images on Faux News rather than discourse that actually influences political outcomes?

2. Having sucessfully fought off the totalitarian Nazi Third Reich during World War II and the rise of soviet totalitarian communism in the 40 years that followed, why have Americans become so eager to rush to embrace with fervor the very concepts of totalitarianism as rules of governance that we once so vehemently despised in the name of "national security" simply to protect ourselves from a relatively few, much less well armed religious wackos?

3. Have American youth become so enthralled with video games that they now think real life must emmulate video games, in which increasingly, defence contractors design and produce the games and they are compelled to play rather than video games emmulating real life, where finding ones way through the sublime ambiguities of life is essential for survival, when simply blowing everything up is not really an option to get the girl and have offspring, who themselves will have a hopeful future?

4. Exactly, how much will having a safety drone, complete with missles, electric machine guns, and hookas equipped with portable nipples able to dispense the mandatory kool-aide, on every street corner actually going to cost us?

5. What will be America's future and what role will you play in First and Only Life?

But they did send us...

[Chaset]

>Canada is our FRIEND. Canada has not offered us violence, or a flood of illegal aliens, or a torrent of criminals, or anything worse
> than the occasional pot smuggler or draft-dodger haven.

Cue Celine Dion jokes in 3...2...

Made in Taiwan,

[Burntfinger]

shipped to the US and then shipped back to Taiwan vis Alaska. So what's new there?

Smuggling

[Burntfinger]

You forget all those illegal toilets form Canada. You know, the ones which actually accomplish their task in one try.