Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Civilian Use of Drone Aircraft May Soon Fly In the US

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-get-a-drone-you-get-a-drone-everybody-gets-a-drone dept.

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from the Seattle Times: "Drone aircraft, best known for their role in hunting and destroying terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, may be coming soon to the skies near you. Police agencies want drones for air support to find runaway criminals. Utility companies expect they can help monitor oil, gas and water pipelines. Farmers believe drones could aid in spraying crops with pesticides. 'It's going to happen,' said Dan Elwell, vice president of civil aviation at the Aerospace Industries Association. 'Now it's about figuring out how to safely assimilate the technology into national airspace.' That's the job of the Federal Aviation Administration, which plans to propose new rules for using small drones in January, a first step toward integrating robotic aircraft into the nation's skyways."

151 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Drone aircraft, best known for their role in hunting and destroying houses and children"

  2. FAA Director Yoda quoted: by Leebert · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Begun, the Drone Wars have."

  3. Oh he many uses by NetNinja · · Score: 2

    How shall we count them?

    Traffic reporting
    Speeders/ Speed traps Hey someone has to pay for Maintenance, Fuel and Pilot for this thing!
    Forestry service
    Fire fighting
    surveillance (Abuse of powers, Gonna happen)
    Night vision, Infrared/Thermal imaging
    Knock, Knock! Who's there!? Search Warrant!
    BOOM! precision guided munition right into your toilet.

    Let's not forget alien Centipedes for Senator assasinations.

    1. Re:Oh he many uses by zlives · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ooh, target practice

    2. Re:Oh he many uses by evanism · · Score: 1

      hehe. Shoot them out of the air. That would be fun!

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    3. Re:Oh he many uses by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Wild hog killing machines. Yes! Damn things are a menace. The breed like rats and can grow to ungodly proportions. Some bigger ones are often fearless. Sit home in a recliner and "X-Box" our way to population control. Aerial hog hunting is legal in Texas provided you have a license and both the chopper and weapons are manned. But, there's nothing in the law preventing drone technology either so... good times I think.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Oh he many uses by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      Yeah...except, you know, somebody will have to buy new ones then. And if it was a federal controlled one, that one is *you* with your tax money.

    5. Re:Oh he many uses by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Bonus points added for it being a law enforcement vehicle(soon to be declared an officer). I'll wager that, by the fifth year after deployment, shooting at a drone will bring charges of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer.

      Unless something remarkable happens in AI research in the next 5 years, that seems remarkably implausible. You don't get charged with attempted murder of a law enforcement officer for shooting their car, unless they're in it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Oh he many uses by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Bonus points added for it being a law enforcement vehicle(soon to be declared an officer). I'll wager that, by the fifth year after deployment, shooting at a drone will bring charges of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer.

      Unless something remarkable happens in AI research in the next 5 years, that seems remarkably implausible. You don't get charged with attempted murder of a law enforcement officer for shooting their car, unless they're in it.

      You DO however get charged with attempted murder of a police officer if you use what a judge/DA/jury decides is "lethal force with intent to kill" against a police dog. An animal which neither knows nor cares about rights & protections under the law while it chews off someone's gonads (or their throat) after they've already surrendered. I would think that the inability of a suspect to be able to surrender peacefully to a dog would disqualify it from "officer" status.

      How many bacon-treats does it typically take for the average police dog to pass the required 4-year Criminal Justice college courses and the police cadet exams, anyway?

      Stat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  4. Modern Day Kite Fights? by monzie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kite Fighting is a common festival in many parts of Asia. In a few years from now, imagine if a bunch of dudes do that with drones ( and the drones shooting at each other with Spud Guns in mid-air).

    It will soon become and industry of its own. Microsoft and Sony will soon come out with Fighter Drones.

    Microsoft's will have a "ring of death" ( It'll circle your house twice before crashing into your house and destroying the ceiling/attic.

    Sony's will have the ability to fly carrying a dog as a passenger. But one day it'll disable it via software update and your mutt will no longer be able to fly.

    Nintendo will come out with a cheaper, smaller drone will require you to flap your arms like a bird, which the drone will faithfully imitate.

    I see a good future for the gaming industry with this.

    1. Re:Modern Day Kite Fights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Meanwhile in the real world R/C clubs are dying off in the cities as land has become way too expensive and the population too densly packed to tolerate small aircraft falling out of the sky just so people can get their thrills.

      Newsflash: Sometimes people leave the city for recreation.

      And now I'll really blow your mind: Some people don't even live in cities to begin with

    2. Re:Modern Day Kite Fights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You forgot the Apple drone. It's white, loses reception if you touch the controls a certain way, and costs 3x more. And when an updated model comes out, the speed of the previous models is reduced greatly via forced update.

    3. Re:Modern Day Kite Fights? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      It also has no user-serviceable parts and no bolt-on supplemental fuel tanks.

    4. Re:Modern Day Kite Fights? by Thing+1 · · Score: 2

      Did you orgasm as you finished writing that?

      Why do you ask? Do your fingers double as keyboard-sensitive erotic zones, also?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    5. Re:Modern Day Kite Fights? by syousef · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Meanwhile in the real world R/C clubs are dying off in the cities as land has become way too expensive and the population too densly packed to tolerate small aircraft falling out of the sky just so people can get their thrills.

      Newsflash: Sometimes people leave the city for recreation.

      And now I'll really blow your mind: Some people don't even live in cities to begin with

      Newsflash. Majority of the population lives in cities. Newsflash, modern life means opportunities to go away have severly decreased. Newsflash: r/c flying requires practice and upkeep.

      With so many news flashes perhaps you should take up photography.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    6. Re:Modern Day Kite Fights? by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Do your fingers double as keyboard-sensitive erotic zones, also?

      Oh, yes.

      Yes, YES, YES!!!!

      And I'm spent.

    7. Re:Modern Day Kite Fights? by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Newsflash, modern life means opportunities to go away have severly decreased. Newsflash: r/c flying requires practice and upkeep.

      Newsflash: so does surfing, mountain biking, rock climbing, horseback riding, kayaking, sailing, skiing, hang gliding, golf, or plenty of other activities. Any of these can be done in under a 4 hour drive from the heart of Silicon Valley, a *fairly* populated area (toss out skiing and it's more like 1 hour). And I have have various friends who combined to every one of these, regularly. If you like your hobby, an hour drive on the weekend nothing.

      Newsflash: just because your life sucks and you have no interest or time to go outside and have fun, doesn't mean the rest of us don't do it. If anything, modern life has *enabled* many more of these opportunities than previously available to the average person...

    8. Re:Modern Day Kite Fights? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That was looking very interesting, but GBP300 is a bit steep for a toy (especially when you've got kids of your own who would probably want to play with it and break it).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Modern Day Kite Fights? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      William Gibson imagined this 26 years ago.

  5. I don't see what's to stop... by TWX · · Score: 1

    ...people from taking pot shots at them, be it with firearms, slingshots, toy rockets, what have you. I suppose that the best way to prevent this from happening is to make them so hideously expensive to insure or operate that no one bothers.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you also smash speed limit signs? Torch cop cars? Maybe you don't like TV, so you dig up and cut cables? To hell with all the anarchists who want society to be like the wild west. Believe it or not, we already have flying machines that can do all these things. Drones just make them cheaper and more accessible to everyone.

      Go ahead. Shoot one down, if you want. If you're that violent a person, society will be better off with you in prison.

    2. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by TopSpin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      taking pot shots at them

      Cops routinely round up numpties that point lasers at pilots. You go firing at a UAV that is most likely returning real-time video of your brilliant self to the operator and you can bet they'll be at your door inside an hour with a picture of you drawing a bead someone's expensive aerospace equipment.

      Have you not seen the video out of Iraq or Afghanistan of individual insurgents being hunted down by UAVs? Just replace the Hellfire with a patrol car and you've got the picture.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    3. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...people from taking pot shots at them, be it with firearms, slingshots, toy rockets, what have you. I suppose that the best way to prevent this from happening is to make them so hideously expensive to insure or operate that no one bothers.

      Discharge of firearm in a populated area: bad, jail bad.

      Slingshots: good luck hitting a small, erratically moving target 20 stories up.

      Toy rockets: you got a gyro guidance system with optical tracking on that thing?

      What have you: apparently you have nothing that can take out a drone, even the guns aren't going to be easy, trying to hit a 2' target at 100+ yards with a major elevation change.

      Insurance: is based on risk, it's a business. The only way risk will be increased by lawmakers is if the chance for lawsuit is increased. Since most applications are downright illegal right now, drones are un-insurable. As for liability after they are legal, how much damage can 2 lbs of plastic do falling on whatever? O.K., now, how much damage does a Cessna do when it crashes while flying low for pipeline monitoring, crop dusting, etc.?

      People hate change, drones are change. Don't hate the drones, they really are better than what we had before.

      Go ahead and hate the people who will misuse them, but remember that you don't need to fly to install cameras on every intersection, automatic license plate readers in every squad car, or facial recognition cameras at the entry to every store.

    4. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2

      Depending on the size and complexity of the drone, I would wire up an appropriately-sized radio control airplane(or copter) with a camera and a light payload of explosive, probably using a servo instead of electronic signal as the detonator for safety reasons. It would be more expensive than firing off a few rounds, but the fact that the oppressors paid a hundred or even a thousand times more for their drone than I did would be worth it.

      Drones (and drone operators) are extremely ill-suited to dealing with level playing fields. But you're right about everything else, though. Guess its time to move to a rural area, growing and hunting all of my food and saving up enough money to flee the country before its military is turned loose against the general population.

    5. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Have you not seen the video out of Iraq or Afghanistan of individual insurgents being hunted down by UAVs? Just replace the Hellfire with a patrol car and you've got the picture.

      Are you suggesting that civilian UAVs should be outfitted to fire rocket-propelled patrol cars at ground targets? Because that sounds simultaneously awesome and impractical.

    6. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Depending on the size and complexity of the drone, I would wire up an appropriately-sized radio control airplane(or copter) with a camera and a light payload of explosive, probably using a servo instead of electronic signal as the detonator for safety reasons. It would be more expensive than firing off a few rounds, but the fact that the oppressors paid a hundred or even a thousand times more for their drone than I did would be worth it.

      Stick with rifles, you'll have a hell of a time hitting it with an RC aircraft and they're more likely to know you did it - with the rifle you can shoot from a concealed location and disappear before they can find you. Either way, gunshots or flying explosive charges around, your're in jail when caught.

      Drones (and drone operators) are extremely ill-suited to dealing with level playing fields. But you're right about everything else, though. Guess its time to move to a rural area, growing and hunting all of my food and saving up enough money to flee the country before its military is turned loose against the general population.

      Point of the article is that drones are shrinking. Sure, the Predator is the size of a 707, but take a look at Switchblade, smaller than the RC plane you can get at your hobby shop, faster too, not cheaper, but it costs less than your legal fees will trying to deal with the legal charges you'll face for putting RC explosives into the air.

      The rural area plan sounds good, but unless you can afford hundreds of acres, it's not much more secure than living in a normal city. And, as for fleeing, to where? Try to take comfort in the fact that we've got less than 1% of our population in the military, half of them as reservists, even if the military does consume nearly 5% of our GDP, those numbers have been generally falling from 10% of GDP and more soldiers (in absolute numbers) in 1960.

    7. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by infoseek · · Score: 1

      Hell why bother with a kinetic strike. Just jam them and they'll crash. If the drone could switch into autonomous mode it would be more difficult. But there is all kinds of potential for spoofing, at least well enough to crash it. If the government ever lost it's marbles and and started to seriously oppress Americans I think they would be surprised at how quickly libertarian geeks would compromise all their systems.

    8. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by d3ac0n · · Score: 3, Interesting

      but take a look at Switchblade, smaller than the RC plane you can get at your hobby shop, faster too

      Hate to break it to you, but Hobbyist FPV (First Person View) RC pilots have been building and flying planes that are smaller AND faster than that, with greater range.

      From the spec sheet:

      Size: Unlisted. but from the picture it appears to be roughly 2 feet long, with a 1.5 foot wing span.

      Weight: 5kg!! This is VERY heavy for a UAS of this size. Most short range FPV birds clock in less than 4kg, preferably closer to 2 or 3. Long range birds weight more, mostly due to larger batteries.

      Speed: 55knots (a bit over 63mph) about average for a UAS of this size, there are MANY very cheap foamy planes in use right now as FPV platforms that will easily crest 100mph. (Stryker, Funjet)

      Range: 5KM Again, fairly average for a plane this size. For FPV round trips, that's 2.5km out and back. Many FPV planes can go 5 out and back, 10 out and back and more. So 5km one way isn't impressive.

      So it's not faster, not smaller, and yes, not cheaper. Mostly because it's a flying bomb, NOT the type of plane we are likely to see used for reconnaissance. Don't get me wrong, it's a great tool. Just not what you thought it was for.

      In truth, the private sector is very far ahead of the military in regards to small UAS craft. Mostly due to hobbyists pursuing it on their own. If you see a drone up in the sky, you can bet it isn't big brother, it's probably your neighbor from down the street.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    9. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      Jam it.

    10. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by Max_W · · Score: 2
      If there is, say, an army of drones, hundreds of thousands of them. And if, let us suppose, they are all in the air for an attack. But what if an evil-genius hacker takes over the control of them via his own radio signal to them and turn them against the good guys?

      It is, sort of, single point of failure.

    11. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcArnepkhv0

    12. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what Predator you've been looking at, but the MQ-1 is similar in size/speed/weight to a Cessna 172, not a 707.

    13. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I stand partly corrected, I was thinking of the MQ-9 with a wingspan of 66', as opposed to the 172 at 36', or the 707 at 130'.

    14. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Impossible. There are no good guys!

    15. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by DigitalGoetz · · Score: 1

      For once, a great means of spending my tax dollars! Effective law enforcement with a hint of zazz!

    16. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      The RQ-4 Global Hawk is more the size of a 707. Wingspan of 116'.

    17. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Obviously, if you're stupid enough to point a laser at an aircraft from your own back yard, or you're stupid enough to fire at a UAV from a fixed location (like your back yard) and without a mask, then you'll be easy to catch. If you go somewhere else, like rural land that doesn't belong to you (thus is not traceable to you), and wear a mask, while shooting down a UAV, then how exactly are they going to catch you? That real-time video isn't going to help when all it shows is some person wearing a balaclava and holding a black rifle that looks exactly like all the rifles that millions of Americans have been buying up in the past 5 years.

      Obviously, this would only be effective against any low-flying UAVs. I'm honestly not sure how effective small arms would be against these things.

    18. Re:I don't see what's to stop... by gutoandreollo · · Score: 1

      Have you not seen the video out of Iraq or Afghanistan of individual insurgents being hunted down by UAVs? Just replace the Hellfire with a patrol car and you've got the picture.

      FOR NOW you replace the hellfires with patrol cars.. And when that becomes insuficient, you bring back the hellfires..

  6. This is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1. Aerial surveillance is a widespread random search. Like a checkpoint but without the fiction of surrendering your rights to get a license.

    2. Facial recognition, searching databases to connect visual elements to a context of "finding perps", is warrantless search and research.

    The mere fact it is possible to laser capture all audio from all windows of all residences simultaneously, does not make it right to capture the data.

    More to my point, using military procedures, equipment, technology, and rules to persue civil crime or "violations" is a direct violation of the liberty clause of the Constitution (leave me alone principal).

    There's my 2 cents. By the time I die expect to have exactly zero rights remaining, and all of a sudden to have spent more than my cumulative lifetime 12 hours in jail. I went to a scared straight program too. :D

    JJ

    1. Re:This is simple by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking that's not likely to be a violation of the constitution, but IMHO it does justify amending the constitution to provide at least some protection for it.

    2. Re:This is simple by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2

      Top it all off with a little Senate bill 1867 and your nightmares have become true, my friend.

      Start preparing for military rule.

  7. Japan's Robot Overlords by Dutchy+Wutchy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Japan has been using UAVs for agriculture for years. Pretty cool stuff.
    http://benpheneverything.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/robotic-crop-dusting-in-japan/
    http://www.gizmag.com/go/2440/

    1. Re:Japan's Robot Overlords by ScottyLad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here in the UK, drones have already been used by civilians to survey the masonary of the Stirling Bridge

      The civilian contractors, however, appear to be more adept at handling the technology than Merseyside Police, who forgot to get permission from the Civil Aviation Authority to use their drone, before crashing it in to the River Mersey a year later.

      --
      Philosopher (n) - a wise person who is calm and rational; someone who lives a life of reason with equanimity
    2. Re:Japan's Robot Overlords by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Well, on the other hand, they managed to keep it flying for a year, which must say something positive about their batteries.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    3. Re:Japan's Robot Overlords by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Drones are used in filmmaking all the time too.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  8. Fourth Amendment by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 3, Informative

    This has major fourth amendment implications--When technology is in use by the civilian public, there is supreme court precedent saying the fourth amendment generally doesn't reach it. (An old thermal imaging case.)

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Fourth Amendment by failedlogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know which "thermal imaging" case you're referring to, but I am troubled by police using helicopters to find grow houses using thermal imaging and then getting a warrant to search the place.

      Every time there's a new technology it seems the police want to jump on it. Crime levels have been falling. Yet we're spending more money on policing. This is the case in many major cities. Our city wanted to cut back our Fire service so the Cops could get a larger cut. If the police want to fight fires too, be my guest, until then stop invading on our privacy and turning our nice, (relatively) peaceful society into a police state. Its not like any appreciable increase in police or crime fighting technology has or will demonstrably deter or reduce crime.

    2. Re:Fourth Amendment by jasno · · Score: 1

      "in use by the civilian public... fourth amendment generally doesn't reach it"

      Can you cite the case? I was curious about this - if a civilian uses technology the police aren't allowed to, can the civilian's report serve as probable cause? If that's the case, why don't police use more private contractors to break the law for them?

      Regardless, even though the Supremes have declared it illegal for police to use IR cameras, they're doing it anyway: http://reason.com/blog/2008/12/06/gotcha

      So what about drone detection systems? It would sure be nice if there was a way for civilians to track small drones with little to no radar footprint. I'd bet the acoustic or RF signature of the drone would be a good place to start.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    3. Re:Fourth Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You certainly do have an appropriate name. "Crime levels have been falling, yet we're spending more money on policing". Hmm, I guess there's zero possibility the second has anything to do with the first eh?

    4. Re:Fourth Amendment by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

      Kyllo, maybe? You'll find it in a second if you google it. Florida v. Reilly is also relevant, I think. (re: airplanes and the fourth amendment).

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    5. Re:Fourth Amendment by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      I know for a fact that the power company will alert the local police if a house has higher-than-average power consumption (a telltale sign of a grow operation).

    6. Re:Fourth Amendment by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001); text at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=533&page=27. The relevant quote: "We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman, 365 U. S., at 512, constitutes a search--at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use." Scalia, J., writing for the court.

      Note also that it was 5-4, so it's not the most solid caselaw around, especially with the strong-government crowd sitting on the court.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
  9. A. Your local SWAT team by perpenso · · Score: 1

    I don't see what's to stop people from taking pot shots at them...

    The SWAT team that will kick in your door and haul you away.

    1. Re:A. Your local SWAT team by perpenso · · Score: 1

      How does closing the barn door after the horse as left work for you?

      The GP referred to people, plural. So there is an effect by making an example of an early adopter of such activities. Plus, it deters repeat offenses. :-)

    2. Re:A. Your local SWAT team by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This assumes that they can somehow figure out who shot at their drone. If some guy wearing a mask, out in the woods, shoots one of these things down with his rifle, how exactly would the police figure out who the perpetrator is?

      Of course, this problem isn't much different with manned aircraft, but you don't hear much about people wanting to shoot those down, but a lot of people don't seem to like the idea of unmanned drones conducting surveillance on everyone so it might very well be a problem with those, plus with an unmanned drone, you don't have to feel bad about hurting a human being if you shoot it down (assuming you do it in an area where it's highly unlikely to fall on someone).

      Now of course, if some guy in the middle of a city is shooting at these things, it'll be pretty easy to find him because of all the witnesses nearby. I wouldn't expect too much of that.

  10. KILLERS by dittbub · · Score: 1

    these drones are job killers!

  11. drone aircraft used on/against civilians by slick7 · · Score: 1

    The eye in the sky
    That flies low and high
    Is anon and nigh.,

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    1. Re:drone aircraft used on/against civilians by hguorbray · · Score: 3, Interesting

      so, when it comes time to take out escalating OWS protesters -will it be done via security contractors in India or Pakistan? that would be too ironic...

      only problem is -they might decide to take out the police -as the members of the Afghan military have done so often against the Alliance

      In ancient Rome towards the end they would only allow foreign troops inside Rome to prevent coups and popular uprisings from having a sympathetic or communicative military...

      -I'm just sayin'

    2. Re:drone aircraft used on/against civilians by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      In ancient Rome towards the end they would only allow foreign troops inside Rome to prevent coups and popular uprisings from having a sympathetic or communicative military...

      Of course in Rome that only happened about 200 times...

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  12. hand size copters for media and protestors - by RichMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The small copters should be autonomous and stream media to wifi.
    Get it to follow a reporter/protestor into a situation like a Occupy eviction.

    My camera, its up there. The foottage of you punching me in the face, that's already on google.

    1. Re:hand size copters for media and protestors - by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      In a situation like that don't you think the camera-drone would probably be shot out of the sky?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    2. Re:hand size copters for media and protestors - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Our spectrum jammers, they're already deployed. We received information that terrorists were planning to disrupt your protest to make your protest's message look bad while causing panic and fear. Their nefarious plans to harm you and your cause rely on wifi access. This area has therefore been designated a no wifi frequency zone for your safety and protection, as well as to guard your right to express yourselves freely without terrorist interference. Please excuse any temporary inconvenience this may cause you and your cameracoptors.

      Love, The Police.

    3. Re:hand size copters for media and protestors - by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      There are lots and lots of frequencies you can transmit video on, you can even put it spread spectrum across the police tactical frequencies - if they want to jam you, they'll take out their own C&C.

    4. Re:hand size copters for media and protestors - by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      There are lots and lots of frequencies you can transmit video on, you can even put it spread spectrum across the police tactical frequencies -

      It is really really hard to put a full framerate video stream through a 7.5kHz pipe, even using "spread spectrum" or a digital voice mode.

      The last new video streaming device for cops and fire had to get a waiver from the FCC so they could use amateur frequencies in the 70cm band. They couldn't find anyplace else to send the video back. Well, they could, but they'd have to redesign the hardware to use a different frequency and that would be Too Hard For Human Engineers. (google: recon robotics).

    5. Re:hand size copters for media and protestors - by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you're going guerrilla, there's no 7.5KHz pipe restriction, those restrictions are purely based on national laws, and most radios are developed for international markets, compliance is handled in software. Many of the better selling radios are easily modded (against the instruction manual) to operate in modes that aren't legal anywhere.

      Having said that, yes, full frame-rate video transmission is a bitch, quadruplely so for 1080p (to get wide field coverage with good detail on what you really wanted to see). But, a FHSS radio TX-RX pair that can handle it over 1km will cost less than $3K.

    6. Re:hand size copters for media and protestors - by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      FHSS radios are HORRIBLE for transmitting video. Not only is the bandwidth not nearly enough, but the 2.4Ghz range sucks, and the frequency hopping absolutely hoses up the video recording back at the base station. And those radios you linked to are WAAAAY to bulky and power-sucking for use in an FPV craft of hobbyist size. Maybe in a Giant Scale craft, but that's not going to be hovering over your protest without being noticed rather quickly.

      Spend some time over on the FPV boards at RCGroups. They will tell you: You don't use Frequency Hopping radios for Video transmission.

      Much cheaper to buy existing fpv class vtx radios. They are far enough out of the range of most standard cell jammers that you are unlikely to be jammed by the police.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    7. Re:hand size copters for media and protestors - by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Video over FHSS isn't ideal, but it can be done, and, yes, I didn't bother to look up Freewave, microHard or the other good digital radio suppliers, mostly because I've never seen them publish price or specs on the web (doesn't mean they're not there, just that I have been working from supplied datasheets that are easier to find and more complete than anything I've ever seen on the web.)

      Traditional video radio links work better, that's why they're traditional. I was responding to a hypothetical scenario where "big brother" jams a video transmission, and if you want to respond to that threat, you can get video out over a good modern (lightweight, high bandwidth) digital link - it's not hobbyist cheap, but if you're covering OWS Manhattan, you should be able to afford it.

  13. Doesn't certain licensing already exist? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Some of these 'drones' that will be available aren't going to be much larger than R/C airplanes.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  14. Re:and who carries the liability coverage? by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're looking for facts and data, you're obviously not spending that time thinking of the children. Won't someone think of the children!?!

  15. DIY Drones by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Civilians are already building their own drones. See DIY Drones, etc.

    Personally I'd like to see a drone airship that can hold a stable position around 70,000 feet (~21km) to use as a WiFi relay, which would fix the problem of getting a clear line-of-sight for point-to-point long-range wireless but good. I doubt it can be done reliably though. But if it could, and you built a fleet of them linked with Open Mesh, you could build a global drone communications network for fairly cheap. Call it Skynet... oh.

    1. Re:DIY Drones by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1

      Only problem is: Wifi does not do 21km links, more like 100 feet. Except if you have ultra-directional, amplified emitter-receivers at both ends.

      --
      You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
    2. Re:DIY Drones by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Call it Skynet... oh.

      Call it a Stratellite.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:DIY Drones by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Take out the "stable" requirement, just require them to maneuver enough to keep decent spacing - now you can do it with solar powered balloon platforms. Sure, 80% of them will end up over the ocean, but if you make them reflective you can help reduce global warming, cost to inflate is probably far less than 1/5th the cost to orbit (assuming you can use something other than Helium...), and if the reflectivity is tunable, you might be able to do some weather control with directed heating/cooling of the ocean and land... oh, the possibilities!

    4. Re:DIY Drones by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Or we could be charitable and assume the OP meant WiMax.

  16. See and avoid... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Thus eviscerating the decades old policy of "see and avoid" as the bedrock of flight in this country. And the rest of the world.

    Drones are both too small to see easily and have no pilot on board that can see any conflicting traffic.

    Anyone want to open a pool to bet on how soon a drone gets sucked into a major airliner's jet intake and causes a crash? Yeah, big jets fly really high -- unless they are landing or taking off or approaching an airport. Drones fly really low -- right where the GA small-aircraft fly.

    1. Re:See and avoid... by mcavic · · Score: 1

      "see and avoid"

      What about TCAS? I'm not that familiar with the technology, but it seems like it should be relatively simple to implement on an unmanned craft.

    2. Re:See and avoid... by Starker_Kull · · Score: 2

      That may work well for airliners in areas where all aircraft are required to have a working transponder (roughy speaking, within 30 miles of 'large' airports - or above 18,000 feet)... but large majority of the U.S. airspace doesn't require this, and most smaller aircraft don't have TCAS, or sometimes even a transponder. 'See & Avoid' (or if you are feeling cynical, "The Big Sky Theory") is supposed to be the primary method of collision avoidance in VFR conditions, and even in IFR, you are expected, if you see something, that 'shouldnt be there', to avoid it!

      When limitations of See & Avoid [SAA] were encountered in the past, specific mechanisms were implemented to preserve the concept while carving out sensible guidelines for exceptions. For instance, the military has some mighty fast airplanes that are designed to be extremely low visibility - not so good from the SAA perspective. So, large chunks of airspace called Military Operations Areas were carved out where they could go play. When an MOA is hot, you are not prohibited from going in there... but most sensible pilots do. Airliners fly in all sorts of weather & lighting, and as flights became longer in duration and more 'heads down' (navigating by instruments, more radio work, attitude instrument flying, systems monitoring, etc.), and in much faster aircraft, SAA became harder & harder to maintain. So, above 18,000 in the US, you are in class A airspace, which used to be called, much more descriptively, Positive Control Airspace. Every airplane there is under ATC control, and they take responsibility for aircraft separation. No VFR traffic allowed. Since this is generally above the altitudes most private airplanes fly, it was a nice idea that gained safety for the airlines while allowing general aviation to keep its freedoms & flexibility.

      I hope something sensible like that will be done, perhaps to restrict drones to certain types of airspace... require some form of piloting qualifications for drone operators... require transponders on all drones, or... well something. Or one day, a drone is going to be enginebait & cause an accident. One of the biggest incentives for safety as a pilot is the fact that you are first to arrive at the scene of an accident. Drone operators don't have that, and I wonder if it will be possible to maintain such a robust safety culture without it....

    3. Re:See and avoid... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      TCAS is not installed on many, if not most, of the GA fleet. And TCAS is an add-on to "see and avoid", not a replacement.

    4. Re:See and avoid... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Thus eviscerating the decades old policy of "see and avoid" as the bedrock of flight in this country. And the rest of the world.

      Most of the rest of the world has lightened up about "see and avoid," especially for drones that are smaller and fly lower than migratory birds. The US is falling behind in drone application business development... (cue Dr. Strangelove / Gen. Turgidson's "we cannot allow a mineshaft gap" speech.)

    5. Re:See and avoid... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Since slashdot loves its car analogies ... a drone flying in civilian airspace is like a car with no side-view mirrors and a 100%-obstructed rear window driving on the highway. Dangerous and illegal for darn good reason!

      Couldn't you just as easily amend this to say that a general aviation aircraft with no transponder or TCAS equipment is like a car painted black with no windows at all driving on the highway? Dangerous, and perhaps soon to be illegal for darn good reason!

      On the other hand, I think the cost of safety avionics is way higher than it needs to be - often due to liability reasons (as well as the market being what it is). It seems to me that the government should simply make aircraft safety equipment like this available at nominal cost and require their use. It can source the avionics commercially and get a good price by giving a liability shield, but regulating the product to keep it safe.

  17. Every commercial airliner already is a drone by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What's the big deal? The pilots on a commercial flight are just there to make the passengers feel better.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    1. Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's the big deal? The pilots on a commercial flight are just there to make the passengers feel better.

      No, they are not. I wish people would stop repeating this stupid myth. Airline pilots do an enormous amount of work during a flight, particularly takeoff and landing. It may well be that their jobs could be automated away, or that this will be possible in the near future, but it's nowhere near happening yet.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone by shino6 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No they don't. If it's not a puddle jumper, the damn thing lands itself.

      How about we listen to an actual commercial pilot? http://www.salon.com/2011/08/04/can_jetliners_fly_themselves/

    3. Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      And you don't know what the fuck your talking about you god damn moron!

      In the entire state of California there are two (2) airports that have that capability, LAX & SFO that its.

      It takes VERY specialized equipment for an airplane to Auto-Land, and no GPS isn't it. Both the ILS and the MLS must be upgraded far beyond the standard for normal IFR approaches with a decision height of say 300 feet.

      You don't know what you are talking about so STFU!".

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    4. Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone by Starker_Kull · · Score: 5, Informative

      No they don't. If it's not a puddle jumper, the damn thing lands itself.

      Well, unless you count 737s, 757s, 767s, 777s, and a few dozen other 100+ seat commercial aircraft as 'puddle jumpers', you are wrong. These airplanes have the capability to autoland, under a highly restricted set of conditions, involving maximum wind speeds (on the 737, max headwind 25 kts, xwind 15 and tailwind 10), clearing a large ILS safe zone on the surface of the airport to assure no interference with the localizer & glide slope antennas, minimum visibilites (because many autopilot systems work only the ailerons & elevator, not the rudder, and once you are on the deck you need the rudder to track the centerline, which the autopilot can no longer do, and neither can you if you can't see), etc., etc., etc.

      I flew 600 hours for a major airline on the 737 last year. I did exactly one autoland in the entire year, and it was because the Captain & I wanted the procedural practice, the airport had a CAT III ILS, and it was a quiet day & ATC was accommodating.

      I really wish I knew what urges people to forcefully declare they know about something when they plainly don't. It only subtracts from the discussion and your credibility.

    5. Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I'll concede the pilots are still of utility when the shit hits the fan.

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    6. Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone by SlappyBastard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll take my plate of crow now. FTR, what compels us is years of reading articles in credible computing circles that have said exactly what I said. Yes, upon further reflection, it does strike me that's industry bullshit from the folks who think automation works for everything. That said, I have not seen the claim credibly challenged before today. Clearly there is a lot of money out there selling the automated aircraft. I have known a lot of credible people in the computing, programming and robotics fields who have repeated this claim. My best response is that it is apparent pilots don't have the same sort of lobby out there explaining their side of the problem. Because frankly it looks like pilots have been decidedly left out of the discussion. Bear in mind, around these parts we're awfully prone to liking a good story about autonomous vehicles. Very simply put, good PR has sold me a lie that sits very easily with my mind.

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    7. Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone by infoseek · · Score: 1

      Everything you say is true. But where was that autoland technology thirty years ago? Where will it be in another 30? We aren't there yet but I don't see any insurmountable obstacles to getting there in the future.

    8. Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Well I don't think that's entirely true, yet. Pilots do operate their aircraft themselves a lot, especially when talking about airliners.

      But for the rest I wonder what this "integration problem" is. Communication with traffic control can be automated. When it comes to choosing flight paths, altitudes, and general collision avoidance pilots already have not much if any say in the matter, they follow instructions from the tower. Sure they can request routes, but have to get permission to do it. In a way it doesn't matter whether such instructions are given to a human pilot or a robot pilot in case of a drone craft.

      Then indeed many drones are small. In many areas they may fly unrestricted, like small human piloted aircraft do already (unregulated airspace it's called I think). Add a radar or so for them to look out for obstacles and other traffic, GPS and proper maps so the know where they are and where they can go, and you're good to go. And yes I'm simplifying I know that.

      Flying drone aircraft in commercial air traffic lanes or nearby commercial airports may not be such a good idea anyway. There's enough air traffic there already.

    9. Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone by jonamous++ · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this is not true. VFR aircraft have a LOT of leeway in airspace that isn't Class A (above 18,000), Class B (around huge airports), Class C (around less huge airports) or Class D (around other towered fields). You don't ever have to talk to ATC if you are flying VFR and stay out of that airspace. You can request specific routes on an IFR (an instrument) flight - in many cases they'll be approved, sometimes not - but many flights are not IFR. There are airways - which doesn't involve specifying the type of aircraft that can fly on them. However, if you are flying in VMC (decent weather), and you aren't in class A airspace, there could be a VFR flight anywhere around you. There is more control in Class D, Class C or Class B airspace as all of the aircraft are talking to ATC but that doesn't cover any significant portion of airspace. For example, on Sunday I took off from my home airport, did some maneuvering, flew about 20 miles into the next state, landed at a different airport, took off, flew over a separate airport and did a practice instrument approach back to my home airport. Not once did I talk to ATC, I communicated only on unicom frequencies to announce my intentions to the aircraft at the airports where I was operating (whether anyone else was listening or heard, I don't know). The responsibility was on me as a pilot to keep my eyes open and look for other aircraft. So let's say a drone is flying on its predetermined flight path through airspace shared with VFR flights. There I am, doing maneuvers, changing altitudes, etc. Am I really going to see something with a 2ft wingspan coming at me from the side? It's hard enough spotting another general aviation aircraft with a 30ft wingspan.

    10. Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      DH on an ILS is 200' AGL for Cat I, 100' for Cat II. And yes, I am a CFII.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
  18. I'm uncomfortable with this... by Improv · · Score: 1

    I'm uncomfortable with this, but I'm having trouble understanding exactly why. Maybe it's that I think law-and-order should remain a point-of-tension that requires special effort on behalf of law enforcement, and that tension serves a number of reasonable social purposes; discreet direct action should probably remain possible.

    Maybe I'm fighting the tide, and maybe I should find a way to pin down my discomfort more, but this still is uncomfortable for me.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  19. what about useing military to monter Utility's by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    what about useing military to monitor Utility's lines?

    You can say it's tied to the national guard

  20. A Texas Sheriff's Department Has One by edibobb · · Score: 1

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security bought an unmanned helicopter for a Texas Sheriff's Department. I feel safe!

    http://www.examiner.com/page-one-in-houston/first-unmanned-police-drone-texas-set-to-launch-north-of-houston

  21. Amazon by sexconker · · Score: 3, Funny

    Free No Rush Shipping with $1 Amazon MP3 Credit
    Free 2-Day Shipping
    $3.99 per item Next Day Shipping
    $7.99 per item 8 Hour Service (maximum 20 pounds)

    MAKE IT HAPPEN

    1. Re:Amazon by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      If Amazon has a warehouse in your city, that should be 2 hour service, not 8.

    2. Re:Amazon by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Right, but the shipping estimate page will still list the maximum.
      I often get things in 1 day despite getting 2-day shipping.
      Newegg will get shit to me in 1 or 2 days despite it being 3-5 fays, or 7-10 days shipping.

    3. Re:Amazon by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The ultimate in awesomeness would be to _headslap_ need a 3' HDMI cable at 7pm, put the order into Amazon at 7:05, and have it hit your doorstep by 9 in time to watch the movie, without having to drive to Best Buy and pay $50 for it.

  22. The fcc and faa should force local control by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    The fcc and faa should force local control.

  23. Been thinking about this for years by cosm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I did a college project and built a simple drone with Arduino parts and some model RC stuff. We had to come up with a business plan to present commercial applications for there are many:

    firefighters need a temp profile of a building before they get there, send the drone
    cops need eyes in the sky to find a perp, send the drone
    high volume roadway monitoring, send the drone
    video taping sports events (highschool, private, college, racing, etc), send the drone
    monitoring wildlife/forestry/national park outdoorsey stuff, send the drone
    weather monitoring and remote sensing in harsh environments, send the drone
    Anything that requires helicopter eyes in the sky but doesn't need to transport human or heavy payloads (air fuel is not cheap)
    many more than not 4th amendment violations, send all the drones you got baby.

    With all the good that could come of this technology, I guarantee the loss of civil liberties and privacy will be ten-fold larger. First to market will make lots of money once they pay off the FAA and get through the red tape. Lockheed/Northrop/Boeing/large DoD contractors have the lock on the drone market for the gov't now, once a large demand is created in the non-government sector, we'll see more of these stateside once the red-tape and matters are worked out. Where drones are better at some things overseas, they will be utilized that way here as well (hopefully, but not guaranteed, to be ordinance free). Naturally drones are nothing new, the barriers to entry are cost, FAA regs, demand. But once contractors get the lock and private firms/governments see/feel/create the need, drones will become another fact of life here in Panopticonland.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  24. Remember when...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Remember when we all objected to drones in our skies years and years ago and we were told this technology would NEVER be used on American soil to spy on Americans?

    Remember that anyone?

    Now this shit IS coming to our soil and WILL be used against us. Fucking Liars the lot of them.

  25. Re:FT"FTFY"FY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The US military, best known for their role in hunting and destroying houses and children"

  26. Re:iDrone is a phone by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Do you realize the twisted trainwreck of deviant thought that you have set in motion?

    I just imagined "cheap, ubiquitous UAVs", coupled with disenfranchised hackers, playing "angry drones."

    Story:

    Angered by the theft of their privacy, the hackers swear phyrric vengence on the "pigs" which stole it.

    Cue makers and hackers all over bombing police precincts with novelty makerbot derived UAVs...

  27. Re:and who carries the liability coverage? by mcavic · · Score: 1

    Statistics aren't really necessary. If a drone can accidentally bomb someone, then obviously it can crash into a building. Even if a drone CAN'T accidentally bomb someone, it can still obviously crash into a building.

    Personally, I love the idea of a driverless highway system. Of course there are good applications for flight drones also. But I don't think our quality control is nearly up to par yet.

    That being said, I'll feel better if a drone is fully manned by a remote operator on the ground who has a similar level of visibility and control as a real pilot. Is that a reasonable requirement, or does it defeat the purpose?

  28. It's about time. by lexsird · · Score: 1

    The problem has been that the FAA and pilots have been holding this up I think. You need a pilots license to fly a drone here and that is sad.

    Drone applications don't all have to be draconian in nature. There are a multitude of uses for them and they can help us with a variety to tasks. It will also help open up a high tech market sector for them here in the USA, I hope. This is one of my favorite subjects being I am in school for mechanical engineering stuff. Next year, I think they will turn me loose on working on the RepRap project I proposed my first semester. I would think with that, one could work next on the open source drone that is out there as well, being you can then generate the parts.

    People are far too paranoid about the Government and things in general. Drones are America's new best friend. Didn't our mothers tell us to make friends?

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
    1. Re:It's about time. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I understand strict requirements for being allowed to fly a drone. They're largely in their own control; if you make a mistake in the programming bad things may happen. Most are small, and not of building-destroying grade like a commercial airliner, yet being hit by normal sized RC model aircraft hurts badly at best, and may kill someone.

      Now of course there may be different kinds of drone, anything between a dumb RC craft that will fall out of the sky if you're not controlling it directly, to a fully automatic craft that can take off, fly a mission, and land all by itself.

      Requiring a pilot's license sounds a bit odd to me, especially for small sized craft.

    2. Re:It's about time. by lexsird · · Score: 1

      It makes sense in the fact that you don't put it up into obvious traffic lanes and cause a wreck. Being a pilot you should know about these things. It's a safety issue, of course. I think every department should have a fast, quiet, small VTOL drone that's reliable and easy to operate. HQ can dispatch one quickly to access situations if need be, the applications in regards to law enforcement are a multitude.

      Commercial applications of it are amazing too. I hate to "drone" on and on.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
  29. Uses... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    Drone aircraft, best known for their role in hunting and destroying terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, may be coming soon to the skies near you. Utility companies expect they can help monitor oil, gas and water pipelines. Farmers believe drones could aid in spraying crops with pesticides. Police agencies want drones to launch Hellfire missiles at Occupy UC Davis protestors so that individual police can't be identified."

  30. already got em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the news stations already have these... http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-03/tech/30044325_1_drone-news-corporation-unmanned-aircraft

    1. Re:already got em by mini+me · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any farmers spraying with drones yet, but some farms already using them for crop surveying too. http://www.oneearthfarms.net/operations/

  31. Really... by Gription · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seeing that here in the US we live in the safest time in human history your apparent need to up the ante of the surveillance state seems to indicate you should move to a nice fascist regime. As a person who realizes that, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" I also realize that the "blood of patriots" did not refer to young men shipped to foreign countries but possibly referred to liberty minded citizens right here at home who are willing to take the amazingly slight risk of allowing liberty to remain paramount. I also realize that "tyrants" could even refer to our own government and that the government should be trusted as far as I can spit up wind in a hurricane.

    Government by popularity with a decision making process funded by corporations is an insanely dangerous thing.

    No. I will not willingly give a blind government hierarchy a cost effective way to micromanage our lives and to automate the fleecing of the people. WE ARE NOT THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME. They are supposed to be our servants.
    Think about this: It is impossible for a government, a corporation, or a committee to be moral. Morality requires a conscience and only an individual can have a conscience.

    1. Re:Really... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      It is impossible for a government, a corporation, or a committee to be moral. Morality requires a conscience and only an individual can have a conscience.

      Wrong. For example a corporation can be as moral as those who run it. Keep in mind that many corporations are small. I've worked at corporations who lied and cheated both customers and employees, and I've worked at corporations who treated customers fairly, who treated subcontractors fairly, and who treated employees both fairly and equitably (ex. real profit sharing). I control a corporation, LLC actually, it is precisely as moral as I am. For example I've told a potential client that I can do that job but my experience is not a perfect fit for the task. YMMV.

    2. Re:Really... by Nethead · · Score: 1

      I want my own drone to take out red-light cameras.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:Really... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The reason many corporations are amoral is because the people running those corporations are amoral sociopaths. Not all of them are that way, but many are, because smart sociopaths (lacking a conscience) are very good at rising to the top in organizations since they don't have any morals hindering their progress.

    4. Re:Really... by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      That, and because public corporations are legally required to be amoral sociopaths. It doesn't matter if Mr. Rogers is in charge of the corporation, his shareholders will sue him if he doesn't fuck over his neighbor for a buck.

  32. Re:FT"FTFY"FY by quenda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's not just a troll. The drones get much bigger headlines (just outside the USA?) for blowing up wedding parties and other civilians, than for killing enemies, even though they hopefully do the latter more often.
    I was going to comment about blowing up allied border posts, but that particular massacre was done by piloted planes. So are drones really the problem?
    Are drone pilots any more detached from the carnage than the WWII high-altitude incendiary bomber crews?

    As for civilian use, we could use a couple of these for aerial shark patrols. Not too dangerous flying over the ocean. They could even be armed with a .50 cal gun.

  33. Re:and who carries the liability coverage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure the remote pilot with the same visibility and control as the insitu pilot can take care of ordinary flight just fine. Now let's talk about anomalies. What happens when the data link fails? Or the generator fails (I've been in a small plane where the electrical system failed, at night. That's why you carry a flashlight). Flying is VERY different from remote control automobiles for instance. If the car's ECU fails or the data link dies, it can go into a "limp home" mode or just coast to a stop. Can't do that in a plane: falling out of the sky is bad.

    This is really why you haven't seen extensive use of (large) drones in populated areas. You see them used experimentally in desert test ranges, or along desert borders with Mexico or the wilds of somewhere doing pipeline inspection.. No insurance company in the world is going to write a liability policy for it when the possible payout is hundreds of millions.

    Not to mention the "oops, that drone just hit that commercial airplane" Cerritos all over again.

    Maybe in 20-30 years, when the technology improves for collision avoidance, and suitable "deploy parachute and float to ground in event of disaster" type hardware is developed and tested (such things exist for ultralights and small planes now)

  34. Re:and who carries the liability coverage? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    "...has anyone actually ever been injured after a drone ran in to them?"

    I don't know about injured, per se, but I was thrown for a loop when one of my coworkers bumped into me.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  35. Wow, what a headline! by ihateslashfags · · Score: 1

    Sounds so original! I think the Seattle Times copied it.

  36. Re:and who carries the liability coverage? by infoseek · · Score: 1

    I think the solution is to keep them small, just a couple pounds. They could operate at a very low altitude, at a fairly low speed. If they crashed the potential for damage would be minimal. For larger UAV's there will need to be more of the kind of controls you have in commercial aircraft. With shrinking electronics you can still mount cool shit like IR camera's on a small platform.

  37. Re:FT"FTFY"FY by Cigarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Drone attacks during Reagan Administration: 0. Your point?

    It's a relatively new technology: it makes sense that it's being used more and more as time goes by.

    That said, it's a f**king killing machine, and using it amounts to murder. But's that your today's Amerika.

    --
    I don't have a sig.
  38. Re:FT"FTFY"FY by anagama · · Score: 1

    In use since 1995, so the reference to Obama's prediliction to murder by remote control is perfectly appropriate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-1

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  39. bring it on. by fonitrus · · Score: 1

    How annoying do you find cyclist couriers in the city dodging traffic and causing accidents all while risking their lives. Now drone courier system would be super cool will reduce cyclist traffic and wont clutter the airways with nonsensical chatter between buddy couriers talking about what they had to lunch or what that busty receptionist at the legal aid office was wearing today. If a drone can carry a missle payload then it can easily carry a bunch of documents and moreso will have direct line express route across the city. Drone pizza takeaway service? pay online by credit card and the drone will paradrop a pizza to your door. no it wont land so you can steal it nor give you change. i expect cash to die out and everything to be paid by plastic in my future world :) :) :) for added protection the drone can carry a missile JUST IN CASE... if you somehow made special landing/hookup mail boxes mandatory for all household your post office can deliver the letters via drones. :)

  40. Re:and who carries the liability coverage? by flghtmstr1 · · Score: 1

    The solution is to prevent them from being used in the first place, preferably through legal means before they become widespread.

  41. Re:FT"FTFY"FY by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    Murder by remote control has been around since the invention of...well...probably the rock. Or language, depending on your definition.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  42. Drones already have been used by execthis · · Score: 1

    Sometime back in 2002 or 2003, for many months there was a UAV flying a pattern in SF which crossed above my apartment about every 30 minutes. The noise from it was intolerable - it sounded like one of those extremely whiny 2-cycle things. I have photos of it somewhere that I could dig up. If they start using these things again I am very concerned about the noise. You do not want one of these things flying a route that passes above you regularly.

  43. I just hope that they by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I just hope that they find a way of preventing Muslims form controlling them. Otherwise they could be coming to a window near you soon.

  44. Re:and who carries the liability coverage? by infoseek · · Score: 1

    Why discard the benefits such technology offers unnecessarily if it can be done safely? Surely your not against all uses of drones? What wrong with a little mobile chopper with an IR sensor that can help a farmer monitor the health of their crops. To abandon such a promising technology for so little cause would be almost unprecedented. If you want to hold humanity back you better have a damn good justification.

  45. No more... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    ...sex in the garden then, with spy drones flying about the neighbourhood.

  46. Re:and who carries the liability coverage? by jonamous++ · · Score: 1

    I read: "such things exist for ultralights and small planes now" and instantly thought "The Cirrus isn't a small plane..."

  47. Re:Well, that's the trick... by jonamous++ · · Score: 1

    They could enforce a rule that the pilot must have appropriate certificates and ratings to fly a manned aircraft of similar size. Perhaps enforce a minimum of Single-Engine Land, Instrument Airplane, and a Commercial ticket.

    For something larger (predator size) mandate that the pilot have an ATP. They could also mandate that the operator be located at the departure or arrival airport during operation and force them to get flight following or fly on an instrument plan. Give them N-Numbers and allow controllers to violate the pilot based on their actions.

  48. Been done in Europe already, see the Warsaw videos by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Yup, been done in Europe already. Check the video of the protestor in Warsaw who used a camera to fly over police lines.

  49. Other uses by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) intimidating crowds of protesters
    2) mass delivery of casual pepper spray
    3) spying on any person/house/field
    4) following vehicles remotely
    5) issue speeding tickets remotely
    6) back-up air support for raids (Branch Davidian debacle)

    Until I see law enforcement acting responsibly with the power they already have I am not a fan of giving them more.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  50. A couple thoughts by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Pilots world wide are required to speak english. How do drones talk to ATC? Also, when one of these crashes they won't be able to blame the pilot so we'll have court battles between the companies who own/operate them and the manufacturer unless these are the same, in which case it's clear who to sue.

    1. Re:A couple thoughts by docwatson223 · · Score: 1

      The drones don't, the pilots of the drones do. They even file flight plans in combat zones as well.

  51. Forget remotely piloted, where are the swarms by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

    At a conference last month I met a guy that built a 6-bladed-heliicopter that could carry 3 pounds. He built it to replace a very expensive RC copter he was afriad to even fly because starting it was dangerous.

    Anyhow he's also built $130 flying machines that run open source swarming software, he uses multiple drones to map radio networks.

    I figure the crop dusting would probably go better with something like that, the swarm knows which sections of the crops it has covered and doesn't overlap.

    The drones would have to be bigger to carry enough payload to be economical, but why would you make the farmer pilot the thing? Release the drones to GPS map the farmer's property, then edit the map once to cover any issues and from then on its release them on a regular schedule like a roomba.

    Also I know in California they plant rice with airplanes, maybe they can manage something similar with the same drones they do the crop dusting with.

    I am thinking that the farmer can get his rice, pesticide, or fertilizer loaded and start his robot flying circus going faster than he can meet a pilot at the local airstrip with same materials.

    Excuse any ignorance of the process on my part, maybe the guy with the crop dusting plane would do just as well to have a small fleet of drones that he operates out of a uhaul and not have to hangar and insure a small plane somewhere.

    1. Re:Forget remotely piloted, where are the swarms by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Google Earth is a perfectly adequate route / coverage planning tool, if you are worried about accuracy to the foot, you can start with Google Earth and make your own high-res geo-tiff of the area.

      I think crop-dusting by drone is already done in Europe, and swarms of small/cheap drones are better than hauling 200lbs of flesh and bone through the air any day.

  52. Re:FT"FTFY"FY by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Major illegal wars started by Bush: 2

    Major illegal wars started by Obama: 0

    He might not be the Second Coming, but the US seems much less of a threat to the rest of the world under Obama.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  53. Re:FT"FTFY"FY by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    the collateral damage in war has fallen off so dramatically it's almost unbelievable.

    Golly gosh, yes, the military are so wonderful nowadays! You can count the number of dead men, women and child civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan on the fingers of one hand, practically and most of those were probably secretly terrorists anyway.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  54. Not a new problem, just ask Hot Air Balloonists by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

    I used to work on a hot air balloon crew on the weekends, apparently there was a problem with flying over certain farms where the growers would shoot at the ballons passing over their property.

    I was told the guy flying the balloon would note the location of the farm, and call the FBI when he landed.

  55. Re:FT"FTFY"FY by anagama · · Score: 1

    Major illegal wars not ended by Obama: 2 (he lobbied Iraq to stay but Iraq decided to stick with the timetable set under GWB).

    Major illegal wars expanded: 1 (at one time, there were more than 3x the number of troops in Afghanistan than under Bush).

    Minor illegal wars setting despotic precedent: 1 (Obama didn't even abide by the War Powers Act in Libya setting the stage for future presidents to not even bother with asking congress for approval -- under the constitution, the president isn't allowed to start wars at all).

    Then there is the extrajudicial murder of a US citizen without trial, without evidence, and without review based solely on Obama's assertion he was a bad guy.

    If you think American's are safer under Obama, you are deluded. He has taken the Bush/Cheney abuses to new levels and is essentially preparing us for the final de facto repeal of our civil liberties.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  56. Re:FT"FTFY"FY by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Your logic is all over the place. It's almost as if you have a problem with him for some other reason...

  57. Re:and who carries the liability coverage? by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Why? Should we ban cars, too, as they can be misused?

  58. Re:FT"FTFY"FY by anagama · · Score: 1

    Explain how it is all over the place?

    Obama is a warmonger and civil liberties violator. Bush was a warmonger and civil liberties violator. That's my issue with Obama and I give examples. Explain the logic problem.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  59. Re:and who carries the liability coverage? by flghtmstr1 · · Score: 1

    I have no problems with the technology itself. I have a problem with the potential for misuse (especially by law enforcement, DHS, DOJ, etc.). These drones are much less expensive to own and operate than a manned aircraft, making it easier for the aforementioned organizations to subject citizens to 24/7/365 surveillance.

  60. Not just yet for the USA by garymortimer · · Score: 1

    Whilst Europe and Australia enjoy commercial UAS operation the USA are years behind. Both in technology and regulation. Yes there might be lots of military drones but the small civil stuff is rising from the East. The regulators have not even had open discussions yet http://www.suasnews.com/2011/11/10245/uas-arc-2-0/ so January is a silly idea!

  61. CEOs not required to act amorally by perpenso · · Score: 1

    That, and because public corporations are legally required to be amoral sociopaths. It doesn't matter if Mr. Rogers is in charge of the corporation, his shareholders will sue him if he doesn't fuck over his neighbor for a buck.

    That is untrue. The concept of increasing shareholder value does not have a timeframe restriction. A moral CEO is free to decide that shareholder value is best increased by the longer term decision to preserve the corporate reputation and not screw customers, suppliers, etc. Regrettably they do not always do so but this is not because they are required to act otherwise.

    1. Re:CEOs not required to act amorally by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The laws concerning corporate behavior haven't changed substantially over the last 50 or so years, but the extreme focus on short-term profits is a relatively new development, which seems to coincide with more lower-income people getting into the stock market, and the ability of traders to trade very quickly.

    2. Re:CEOs not required to act amorally by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      I know it's not exactly true, but in modern America it may as well be. Long-term thought no longer exists. A moral CEO would be replaced or sued after a few quarterly reports showed his actions weren't making profits in the near future.

  62. Drone shoots free-roaming chicken. by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    More news at 11.

  63. TF ODIN by docwatson223 · · Score: 1

    If you all look at the effectiveness of TF ODIN in Iraq and Afghanistan, you will understand why this technology cannot - ever - be allowed domestic utilization. Keep in mind that the drones see in nearly every spectra and through surfaces, can loiter for extremely long periods of time while nearly invisible, and is incredibly effective in the observance and prosecution of a designated target. (If you're in a drone's sights, you're a 'target' not a 'suspect') The power and ability of a domestic drone system combined with something like Palantir would rip the definition of privacy right out of the dictionary and put it in the trash. The is nearly no one who can truly - read: openly - explain the degree of power and impact of an integrated system like this would have on our day to day lives as Americans.