Slashdot Mirror


More Drones Set To Use US Air Space

Dupple writes with a quote from the BBC about more testing of Predator drones in U.S. air space: "Tests have been carried out to see whether military drones can mix safely in the air with passenger planes. The tests involved a Predator B drone fitted with radio location systems found on domestic aircraft that help them spot and avoid other planes. The tests will help to pave the way for greater use of drones in America's domestic airspace."

223 comments

  1. Who do I have to salute? by paiute · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Say farewell forever to even the concept of posse comitatus, limited as it was. Now it is just a Latin phrase you never heard of.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 3, Interesting
      So you don't think the Police will have their own drones?

      It's just another bear in the air

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty soon, if you want a bit of privacy, better cover your entire parcel with roofing and fencing. Anything visible from the road or sky can be considered in-plain-sight after all.

    3. Re:Who do I have to salute? by capnkr · · Score: 1, Funny

      You'll have no need for such obscure knowledge in the USSO, Comrade.

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    4. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The lawyers will make sure this has no more appearance of domestic military action than the AR-15 in the trunk of your local squad car.

      The persistent surveillance concerns are as much a concern with camera towers and balloons as powered vehicles. Most people don't seem to mind the Wal-Mart Panopticon despite its much greater persistence than a lithium polymer powered flying machine.

      Abuse potential:
      -Weaponized drones getting hacked or abused by corrupt/human cops(jealous husband).
      -Fishing expeditions under vague/broad mission profiles such as "missing child search" leading to search warrants.
      -Low-cost enabling more aggressive swarm behavior ala Half-Life 2.
      -encrypted/obscurificated video surveillance without a warrant(any application which requires covert video should be based on execution of a warrant). Transparency to consumer wireless video standards greatly reduces abuse potential in a similar way to police scanners.

      Bottom line, the general public takes no issue with drones used for first responder & public safety applications. They take issue with surveillance, investigation, and man-hunts.

      The first 2 are resolved by making drone video/picture evidence inadmissible in court. Man-hunts are greatly solved by technological limitations(ATM), and prohibiting the use of weapons.

      Bottom line, so long as the Supreme Court's don't make any dumb decisions involving the fourth amendment, most fruit from the poison tree will be useless in court. This means we primarily need to resist attempts to make progress down the slippery slope of search without a warrant, and paramilitary police tactics.

      Drones were predicted by Orson Wells because they are the inevitable march of technological progress. Drones offer the potential for less violent resolution to conflict which we should all hope would reduce the need for heavy handed tactics. Many cases of police brutality result from an officer's fear for their personal safety. The ability to determine the nature of a threat without infringing on civil liberties will prevent them from assuming the worst case scenerio and over-reacting because of what might-have been.

    5. Re:Who do I have to salute? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Informative

      Posse comitatus does not prohibit the use of the military against civilians. It only states that congress must authorize it, meaning the local sheriff, mayor, or governor can't call in federal troops. Only congress and the president can do that. So it's still wide open.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Who do I have to salute? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Say farewell forever to even the concept of posse comitatus, limited as it was. Now it is just a Latin phrase you never heard of.

      Oh, don't you worry your pretty little head about that. The military won't technically do any law enforcement(though it may prove necessary to engage in certain 'domestic Force Protection' activities in order to safeguard DoD assets and personel...), they'll just fire-sale off military hardware under the Law Enforcement Support Office(unless you trust DoD certs, you'll probably get an SSL warning here) program to various police SWAT teams who will then use it for them.

      See, absolutely nothing to worry about. Yes, the police may be logistically indistinguishable from your average upper-developing-world mechanized infantry; but the org chart says they aren't military, so it's all good.

    7. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Spottywot · · Score: 1

      Drones were predicted by Orson Wells because they are the inevitable march of technological progress. .

      H G Wells?

      --
      In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
    8. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, George Orwell.

      I didn't get much sleep last night.

    9. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Exactly my thought. It is just a matter of time until some judge decides that the view from the air is considered reasonable public viewing.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    10. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We will fly no drone (heavy deep overweight labored breathing) before its time.

    11. Re:Who do I have to salute? by RobertLTux · · Score: 2

      so having your own tween/kid daughters in your pool would be considered "creation of Child Pornography"?

      or better for us draw Federal Charges for the Local Police for Creation/distribution of Child Pornography.

      LAWYERS ARE STANDING BY just call 1-888-2SCREWM

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    12. Re:Who do I have to salute? by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      As much as I don't even care for the surveillance aspects... It's highly unlikely that local law enforcement will have weaponized drones any time soon... In much the same way as they don't typically carry RPGs.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    13. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Yes, the police may be logistically indistinguishable from your average upper-developing-world mechanized infantry; but the org chart says they aren't military, so it's all good.

      You do realize that the reason for posse commitatus is not to keep the local police from having effective and modern weapons, it is to keep the people who are using the effective, modern weapons under the control of the local civilian government, not the federal military command, and not imposing "outsider" rules on a local population? As in, troops can't go in to quash a whiskey rebellion, for example, or used to maintain control in southern states after they rebel again. Except, of course, under order of the President or Congress -- but not just because a local sheriff has lost control of his county.

      They have been used for what most people consider good, however. As in 1958 when Eisenhower sent them into Arkansas to protect people not being protected by the local officials.

    14. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Time for people to hone their skills with model (or "amateur") rocket engines and IR trackers.

      Srsly. It is easily within casual hobbyist technology to bring these things down.

    15. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Orson Wells. Well-known (no pun intended) for his "drone".

    16. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not so fast!

      Until the "drug war", they didn't much carry automatic weapons, either, at least since the '20s. Now they do.

      The increasing militarization of local police forces is not something to be ignored.

    17. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Even under order of the President, it is still illegal to use military against the civilian populace.

      Posse Comitatus Act was intended to limit military use, not enable it. The military can only be used domestically for means explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, or by Congressional legislation. The President has literally nothing to do with it, other than allowing or vetoing said Congressional legislation.

    18. Re:Who do I have to salute? by cusco · · Score: 2

      Wells? Nikola Tesla was building drone boats before Wells (either one) ever even saw an airplane.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    19. Re:Who do I have to salute? by cusco · · Score: 1

      It's not quite so easy for the casual hobbyist to survive a year or two in Guantanamo, though. And with the current rather embarrassing lack of 'terrorist' suspects you know they'll do it.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    20. Re:Who do I have to salute? by cantle2000 · · Score: 1

      what does USSO mean?? I know USSA stands for United Socialist states of America, but I can't figure out USSO.

    21. Re:Who do I have to salute? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Posse commitatus' legislative history basically boils down to southern insurgents, magnanimously granted congressional representation amazingly quickly, voting against the continuation of counter-insurgency efforts so that they could continue rebelling with greater convenience...

    22. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I certainly agree that even while engaging in perfectly legal civil disobedience, it is wisest to not get caught.

      I say "legal" because surveillance drones are illegal in my state, and I believe in the neighboring states as well.

    23. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If memory serves, the president and congress can only authorize it during times of war and civil unrest. The catch 22 is the fact that Obama and Congress are CAUSING the civil unrest so they have an excuse to do that.

    24. Re:Who do I have to salute? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Obama?

    25. Re:Who do I have to salute? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The first 2 are resolved by making drone video/picture evidence inadmissible in court.

      I've always failed to see how facts should be allowed to be inadmissible.

    26. Re:Who do I have to salute? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure building and firing heat seeking missiles is also illegal in your state and all others.

    27. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Even under order of the President, it is still illegal to use military against the civilian populace.

      The wikipedia article I referenced, under "Exclusions and limitations" lists two situations speicifically where it is legal for the President (or executive branch appointees who work for him) to use the military against the civilian populace. And, of course, the military branch known as "Coast Guard" has law enforcement duties already assigned to them.

      Posse Comitatus Act was intended to limit military use, not enable it.

      That's probably why I kept using the phrase 'to keep', as in "to limit or prohibit" in what I wrote.

      The President has literally nothing to do with it,

      Other than the exceptions where he literally has everything to do with it, yes.

    28. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The wikipedia article I referenced, under "Exclusions and limitations" lists two situations speicifically where it is legal for the President"

      Well, THIS Wikipedia article says:

      "... the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress."

    29. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      My point being that those are not parts of the Act... they are areas where the Act does not apply. So in fact the President literally has nothing to do with it. His authority comes from a completely different body of law.

      However, even given all that, the Posse Comitatus Act and similar laws are all rather questionable on Constitutional grounds. I don't really care whether or how often the U.S. Supreme Court may have upheld them.

    30. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I wonder. Is it illegal to take out something that's illegal, by illegal means?

      Probably. Even better reason to not get caught.

    31. Re:Who do I have to salute? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Doing anything by illegal means is illegal. Last I checked, taking the law into your own hands was frowned upon.

    32. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Oh... and flashbang grenades, and teargas (CS and CN) grenades... also devices invented for the military. And civilian police have employed acoustic devices that can act variously as loudspeakers or, in crowd-control mode, generate concentrated sound waves that can cause headache, generalized pain, and nausea.

      This is actually an old technology, but the the newer long-range form of it was developed for the military, and has already been used by local police forces (in loudspeaker mode only, so far) at protests in various parts of the U.S. While it wasn't used as a weapon against civilians, the police were demonstrating their willingness and readiness to do so.

      Civilians in the United States are uniquely allowed by their Constitution to possess military-grade weapons (don't argue with me about that one; it would lead to a flood of citations and you would lose). Therefore it is legal for us to use similar weapons in self-defense. And we are also empowered to defeat those weapons if they are used against peaceful civilians.

      Sometimes, a LAWS or RPG is just exactly what the doctor ordered. If such is not available, messier methods must be employed.

    33. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Nor did they wear bulletproof vests as everyday gear. Now, at least in SoCal (and probably many other metros), they DO.

      Crime is down dramatically, yet police departments are becoming more and more militarized... as you say, a trend not to be ignored... but how can We The People reverse that trend, when it's now damnear impossible to get elected unless you pander to the fear element by touting "tough on crime"??

      Altho I'd say the constitutional sheriffs movement may be a start. I just voted for one whose entire campaign was based on "the local sheriff is the citizen's last defense against an overbearing federal government" and didn't once mention "law enforcement".

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    34. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Ordinary hunting rifles might suffice; they're a lot more readily found among We The People, and a lot easier to conceal. Citizen Snipers, anyone??

      BTW I know a guy who nailed a coyote at a one-mile range; I'm sure he could take out a drone at, say, half that.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    35. Re:Who do I have to salute? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I am assuming it is illegal. However, there is the legal precedent of "the greater good" (or "the lesser evil", if you prefer). That is to say, it is often permissible to break the law if not doing so would cause greater harm. A classic example that is often given is exceeding the speed limit to get a person who is in imminent danger of dying to the hospital.

      In my view, breaking the law to take down a domestic surveillance drone (which pretty much any reasonable person knows to be unconstitutional) is very, very much on the side of the greater good.

    36. Re:Who do I have to salute? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Taking out a drone puts the public in danger of injury or death. You don't know where its going to land or if its going to catch fire or explode. They're full of fuel, just like a regular plane.

  2. Pew pew by space_jake · · Score: 2

    Take that fourth amendment!

    1. Re:Pew pew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is the drone stopping and frisking you? Is it taking some kind of infrared scan of your home? An overhead drone can't see anything that isn't in plain view. I'm certainly not saying domestic drones are a good idea, but I'm not seeing how their mere usage could be considered unlawful search and seizure.

    2. Re:Pew pew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to agree, although it does seem a little creepy. Why do people freak out if we send unmanned drones up to surveil things, but if you stick a guy in the plane suddenly it's OK? Maybe some of it comes from the idea of them miniaturizing them to the size of dragonflies, and giving them enough AI to be autonomous and record everything for later possible use. And also, some people associate 'drones' with hellfire missiles.

    3. Re:Pew pew by Githaron · · Score: 1

      It takes more resources for a man to do aerial surveillance than a drone. This extra cost helps prevent regular aerial surveillance from being the norm. If drones, storage, and processing power become cheap enough, it would be easy to keep a record of everyone's movements. I am not saying the drone tech is inherently evil but the government likes to abuse its power.

    4. Re:Pew pew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      same as GPS tracking in my book. was just fine for someone to follow you around, they couldn't do that to everyone due to manpower limits.

      Police cannot have 5 planes wandering around just looking and recording. They could have 5 drones.

      What is OK for a person to do becomes no so OK when it is automated.

    5. Re:Pew pew by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do people freak out if we send unmanned drones up to surveil things, but if you stick a guy in the plane suddenly it's OK?

      Most of the protection of your privacy is economic, rather than legal or technological. A guy in a plane or a helicopter is Not Cheap, per hour, which creates a sort of 'de facto probable cause' requirement, since the cops can only justify sending one up if they think that they'll find something worth finding.

      Drones are cheaper(still pretty expensive now, getting less so), which means that the economic disincentives to surveillance fall and people enjoy less actual protection from surveillance(since the strict legal protections are markedly lower than the historical economic ones).

    6. Re:Pew pew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, it almost certainly does have infrared sensors. It just wouldn't be much good otherwise.

    7. Re:Pew pew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be true, but it is really tangential to the argument. The economic viability of the method of observation should not be the measure by whether you determine whether it is acceptable or not. It either is, or it isn't.

    8. Re:Pew pew by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The economic viability determines if people have a reason to care. What's the point campaigning against the government (or corporations, or your neighbour) doing something they can't afford to do it anyway?

    9. Re:Pew pew by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      They've already budgeted for drones for the Cook County Sheriffs Dept (think all of Chicagoland) and have requests in with the FAA to fly them.

      What they've been talking about are the smallish ones that fit in the back of a police SUV. They cost less than a car, so they can afford those.

      Of course, it's only a matter of time until they start using much larger ones that can linger for a long, long time. They'll just have to coordinate with O'Hare for the high volume of air traffic.

    10. Re:Pew pew by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      same as GPS tracking in my book.

      If you have GPS tracking in your book you need to stop buying them from Amazon. At least stop reading them on your cellphone with a Kindle app.

    11. Re:Pew pew by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "An overhead drone can't see anything that isn't in plain view."

      "Plain view" in this case isn't YOUR intuitive interpretation of plain view. It has legal definitions. Here, according to state law, "plain view" of your property is from on the ground, in any nearby street or public access way (sidewalk).

      Even "surveilling" someone's property from a nearby hillside with a pair of binoculars is illegal.

    12. Re:Pew pew by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the lower cost of drones just stops taxes being raised to cover regular aerial surveillance.

    13. Re:Pew pew by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      and taking a picture out the window of a plane is illegal too? So the flight mode on my phone should also be disabling the camera as well?

    14. Re:Pew pew by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Depends somewhat on the camera, and the altitude. If it's a large telephoto lens with image stability features, and you are taking pictures in order to see what's in my back yard, yes it would be illegal even if you were flying relatively high. Both here and in the next state over.

      Repeat: any "surveillance" by any means other than the naked eye and ear is illegal without a warrant. And "surveillance" constitutes any vantage other than a nearby road or public place (like a sidewalk) where a normal passerby might -- well -- pass by.

      That means climbing a tree to take pictures over my fence is illegal without a warrant. That means standing on a ladder to see over my fence is illegal (yes, it really is). That means flying over my house in order to see what's on my property is illegal.

      And so is standing on the sidewalk with a pair of binoculars, staring through my window, even if the curtains are open. Again: yes, really.

  3. This will be important... by RobinH · · Score: 5, Funny

    Eventually other countries will have drone capability, and will be flying them over US soil. It's important that we develop the technology to do it safely. ;)

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:This will be important... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? No they won't be flying them over US soil!

    2. Re:This will be important... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wooosh!

      The sound of a joke/foreign drone going over your head. Take your pick.

    3. Re:This will be important... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WHOOOSHHH.

        Watch out! It's a joke drone!

    4. Re:This will be important... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WTF? No they won't be flying them over US soil!

      (Oh, but the irony of us Americans thinking this is perfectly acceptable to do...to others.)

    5. Re:This will be important... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just laughed to death

    6. Re:This will be important... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over a field of combat? Yes. Absolutely, yes.

    7. Re:This will be important... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      So..... we're at war with Pakistan?

      Any field is a field of combat when you drop a Hellfire in it.

  4. Do Not Want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will create a huge burden on hunters aiming for fowl.

  5. hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am starting to really hate my country. This is crap.

    AlphaA

    1. Re:hate my country by capnkr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your country is not the one putting this forth. The current set of "leaders" is. Vote them out next Tuesday.

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    2. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your country is not the one putting this forth. The current set of "leaders" is. Vote them out next Tuesday.

      2008 called, they want their optimism back

    3. Re:hate my country by capnkr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your country is not the one putting this forth. The current set of "leaders" is. Vote them out next Tuesday.

      2008 called, they want their optimism back

      Then they too should vote for someone other than the person/group they voted into office back in '08. Because in the past 4 years, we've seen privacy and rights and wealth dwindle to a fraction of what they were prior...

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    4. Re:hate my country by somersault · · Score: 1

      And what, exactly, do you expect that to accomplish? How will voting for the other party make your wishes on this specific topic known?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because the Rs hate the police state.

    6. Re:hate my country by capnkr · · Score: 1

      Nowhere did I mention members of a particular party. Rather, I mentioned those currently in office. Incumbents, IOW. It would help things too if such persons as yourself would stop playing party politics. Sitting pols may not vote in 'term limits', but we as voters can *create* them. Start now. Have a good day.

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    7. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in the past 4 years, we've seen privacy and rights and wealth dwindle to a fraction of what they were prior...

      ...which were a fraction of what they were in 2001. Those rights and wealth have been dwindling for quite a while now and the only people who seem to mind are seen as being in the same boat as Alex Jones.

    8. Re:hate my country by capnkr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was not I who made this about "Rs" or "Ds" - that is your claim, and yours alone. I say vote out the incumbents, scramble things up, break up the good-ol-boy system of this 2 party hegemony we have.

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    9. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Republican dominated Congress needs to go! Vote these warmongering profiteering nut-jobs out!

    10. Re:hate my country by oobayly · · Score: 2

      Did you warn them about Sandy? Bet you didn't you bastard.

    11. Re:hate my country by somersault · · Score: 1

      So your solution to fixing things you dislike is to keep voting out whoever is currently in power? I don't even know what you mean by me playing "party politics" exactly, I was just saying that voting for a certain party is an extremely limited way to express your opinion on the whole range of issues that exist in any country. Voting for one of two parties accomplishes almost exactly nothing.

      I don't feel an affiliation with any party in any political system (plus I don't even live in the US).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    12. Re:hate my country by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      You're laboring under the mistaken assumption that the two major parties have any significant disagreement about civil liberties protections. The proof that they don't is that neither of their presidential candidates has said a word about it.

      If you want to protect civil liberties, you're going to have to vote for a minor party candidate. And that means you're going to lose, but at least you won't be voting against constitutional protections.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:hate my country by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If people were to consistently vote incumbents out of office, the incentive for trampling on civil liberties would be reduced. As a matter of fact it would offer significant incentive for elected officials to oppose trampling on civil liberties since they would know that they would likely be private citizens again shortly, subject to the same abuses that other private citizens were subject to.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    14. Re:hate my country by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So I should vote for someone who is even worse from my point of view?

      That makes no sense.

    15. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get to choose the leaders, but you have the choice of one of two parties.
      So would it be the beef or the chicken drown in the same gravy train? They both smell and taste the same.

    16. Re:hate my country by mjr167 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vote for someone without a D or an R next to their name. Don't vote for the D because you hate the R or vice versa.

    17. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like this, being in power too long will only corrupt.

    18. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a matter of fact it would offer significant incentive for elected officials to oppose trampling on civil liberties since they would know that they would likely be private citizens again shortly,

      That's not much of a threat when they can just retire or line up some cushy job through one of their lobbyists.

      subject to the same abuses that other private citizens were subject to.

      Former elected officials are still addressed by their title after leaving office and continue to command a higher degree of respect. The idea that they are corralled back in with the rest of the rabble is kind of naive.

    19. Re:hate my country by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're assuming, incorrectly, that the power of elected officials to avoid being treated like everyone else disappears once they leave office. For proof to the contrary, I give you war criminal Dick Cheney.

      Specifically, Cheney proudly said on national television that he ordered waterboarding of prisoners, which the US declared to be a crime against humanity in 1945.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    20. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And replace them with what? Libertarian crack pots? If I see a decent alternative I'll be happy to vote for them. And I guarantee all you Obama haters that Romney would be even worse with regards to police state creep.

    21. Re:hate my country by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      Voting for one of two parties accomplishes almost exactly nothing.

      Actually, voting at all in the US accomplishes exactly nothing, since the two leading parties are nearly indistinguishable, and one of them will always win. A vote for someone other than the leading candidates is a complete waste of time since that vote won't even be noticed. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to vote at all in the US election; it's a rigged, forgone conclusion, with the same mathematical odds as the damn lottery (assuming votes are actually counted at all, which may be a stupid assumption). These poor folks who think that the people still have the power to change something with a vote are as deluded as the poor sots that think they'll win $500 million dollars by putting their kids' birthdays on a lottery ticket.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    22. Re:hate my country by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      ...waterboarding of prisoners, which the US declared to be a crime against humanity in 1945.

      citation needed

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    23. Re:hate my country by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      But then the wrong letter might win.

    24. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    25. Re:hate my country by Immerman · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? If incumbents were consistently voted out of office then they would have no incentive to try to please their constituents, and even more incentive to please their powerful, unelected sponsors to reap rewards after they've served their single term. To even get in the race as a "credible" candidate you need to have the backing of some powerful "behind the scenes" actors - do you really think backing a new sycophant for every election would be anything but a minor inconvenience?

      Or perhaps you're suggesting that the consistent turnover would send the message to politicians that they had better start actually looking out for *our* interests. It's possible - but imagine you're the sort of wheeler-and-dealer that can get sponsored to high office in the first place, which way are you going to gamble? Try to please the constituents while aggravating your sponsors in the hope of breaking the pattern and getting reelected, or please your sponsors for a guaranteed payoff and probable sponsorship to some other lucrative position?

      The only ways I can see of breaking the cycle is a massive grassroots campaign to throw out the incumbents in favor of elect independent/minor party candidates, and or somehow managing to seize popular control of one of the major parties (yeah, I don't see how that could happen).

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    26. Re:hate my country by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      How do I figure? The evidence suggests as much. A large part of the reason it costs so much to get elected is because incumbents have been passing laws that raise the barriers to unseating them (they call these barriers "campaign finance reform") every couple of years. In addition there have been several studies that show that first term legislators are less susceptible to pressure from special interest groups and to other forms of lobbying.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    27. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote out the incumbents = switch Rs for Ds and Ds for Rs. Indies won't matter either.

      My point was, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

      To reverse this trend, you have to dismantle the system, and no one puts the system in a binder.

      I don't like it, but it's the truth.

    28. Re:hate my country by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      From the Encyclopedia Brittanica:

      As a form of torture, waterboarding became illegal under the law of war with the adoption of the third Geneva Convention of 1929, which required that prisoners of war be treated humanely, and the third and fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, which explicitly prohibited the torture and cruel treatment of prisoners of war and civilians, respectively. On the basis of the 1929 convention the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE; 1946–48) convicted 25 Japanese leaders of responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity, specifically including torture by waterboarding (referred to by the IMTFE as the “water treatment”).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    29. Re:hate my country by paiute · · Score: 1

      ...you have to dismantle the system....

      I often see this same thought, that we have to blow up this corrupt system and start afresh. But the new system would be build by those with money and therefore power and will contain few if any of the features - designed to help the system be righted by the people - which the designers of the current system codified.

      Will the new system have checks and balances? Will the new system let anyone access a court system with their grievance? Will the new system guarantee freedom of speech, etc.?

      Really - you want to discard a system designed by Adams and Jefferson and their peers for one designed by the Koch brothers and theirs?

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    30. Re:hate my country by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      A vote for someone other than the leading candidates is a complete waste of time since that vote won't even be noticed.

      This is not true. Third parties have zero chance of winning, but voting for them can have a big impact on the two major parties. Support for Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party caused the Republican Party to move significantly to the right on social issues. Support for Ralph Nader of the Green Party made the Democrats realize that their "move to the center" was alienating their base. The popularity of the Socialist Party in the early 20th century caused the Democrats under FDR to move significantly to the left. The "New Deal" was basically FDR stealing the Socialist Party's agenda.

      So if you want the Democrats and/or Republicans to realize that there are voters that care about issues championed by third parties then voting for them is the ONLY way to do that. If you live in a non-swing state, your vote is meaningless otherwise. So make it mean something by voting for what you actually want.

      Don't worry about the fact that the third parties don't actually have realistic policies. That doesn't matter because they are not going to win. You are voting for a direction , not a destination

    31. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#United_States_law

      In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese civilian who had served in World War II as an interpreter for the Japanese military, Yukio Asano, for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War," asserting that he "did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for" prisoners, but, far worse, that he also "did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture" prisoners of war. Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[120] The charges against Asano included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."[200] The specifications in the charges with regard to "water torture" consisted of "pouring water up [the] nostrils" of one prisoner, "forcing water into [the] mouths and noses" of two other prisoners, and "forcing water into [the] nose" of a fourth prisoner.[201]

      Never mind talking for half a century about all the other gov'ts using waterboarding as a form of torture and crime against humanity. Even Nazis were smarter than - their best interrogators knew that torture does not result in useful information. And before you start with the retarded "citation needed", how about doing your own damn research for a change?

    32. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on Obama loves the police state even more, we're marching double time now that he's been in office, twice as fast as the previous president.

    33. Re:hate my country by mianne · · Score: 1

      Not a chance if you happen to live in any of the 41 non-contested states. Vote for anyone you want in Georgia or California... The outcome is already conceded by the D's and the R's. Your vote in those places does not matter! If you happen to live in one of the 9 swing states, you've probably tossed your television and radio out the window by now. You've heard how both the D and the R will destroy America as we know it! So don't vote for either one of them.

      Go here and vote for whomever's platform best matches your own values... If that happens to be the D or the R, so be it. If you're a typical /.'er you'll probably match with someone like Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, or Gary Johnson.. Vote for any of them... If you're an extreme Xenophobe and worship at the altars of Limbaugh and O'Reilly; you definitely won't match with the D and probably not with the R--you might match up best with Virgil Goode of the Constitution party..

      Vote *your* conscience and *your* choice, not the lesser evil, or whom you've been told repeatedly to vote for!

      --
      Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
    34. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not defending waterboarding, but what you're describing is absolutely not waterboarding.

      Waterboarding specifically attempts to avoid water entering the nose, mouth, and airways. Waterboarding uses water as a secondary element. Water torture uses water as its primary element. Subtle but distinct difference. The former is very dangerous. The later is relatively much safer - as far as torture activities go.

      Also, torture can and does result in useful information. Its just not reliable information. There is a difference. This is a difference both the Japenese and the Germans understood very well.

    35. Re:hate my country by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So I should vote for someone who is even worse from my point of view?

      If you think that either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson is worse on this issue, then you should get a better informed point of view.

    36. Re:hate my country by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      Your country is not the one putting this forth. The current set of "leaders" is. Vote them out next Tuesday.

      What a load of succotash. Slip in a "vote the bums out" remark into a thread that had nothing to do with that.

      FWIW, this erosion of privacy started long ago, not just four years ago. Both parties are guilty of it. Can you accept that?

      The system itself is broken, do you not understand that? It's not the individual players that are broken, it's the whole system. How do you propose we fix that?

      Constantly throwing out the current crop of bastards will not fix anything, and will only screw things up faster.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    37. Re:hate my country by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      While the green party is closer to my views, a vote for the green party is one less vote for the lesser evil.

      Say all you want about voting for the lesser evil, but our voting method forces me to do that. If ~500 had voted for the lesser evil in florida we could have been spared GWB.

    38. Re:hate my country by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'd say we should try it, but I'm convinced it's the VOTERS that need to be replaced more. As long as most of them are willing to sacrifice liberties for a little bit of perceived security, someone will ALWAYS run for office offering them that deal.

    39. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Will the new system have checks and balances? Will the new system let anyone access a court system with their grievance? Will the new system guarantee freedom of speech, etc.?

      Of course not. The new system will be influenced by people with money who want the government to keep them entrenched. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    40. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't love Obama, but do you *actually* believe that Romney administration would be better?

      Until third-party candidates are viable, we're screwed.

    41. Re:hate my country by kenorland · · Score: 1

      Rs and Ds don't behave like the caricatures you have of them. Clinton deregulated and produced a balanced budget. Bush increased regulation greatly. Obama has been one of the worst presidents in recent memory in the area of civil liberties. And Romney ran Massachusetts for years and he isn't the demon you imagine him to be.

      Obama does not deserve a second term: he broke his promises on the economy and has been a bad president in many ways. I understand if you don't want to vote for Romney, there are plenty of things to dislike about him as well and I wouldn't vote for him either, but you do have several other choices.

    42. Re:hate my country by kenorland · · Score: 1

      Really - you want to discard a system designed by Adams and Jefferson and their peers for one designed by the Koch brothers and theirs?

      Wow, you really think in very simplistic terms. In fact, Jefferson was what you today would call a wealthy libertarian, like many of the nation's founders and authors of the Constitution.

      To answer your question, I'd much rather live in a system designed by the Koch brothers than in a system designed by Noam Chomsky.

    43. Re:hate my country by kenorland · · Score: 1

      Get politically active and change it. Political change takes a while, but we overcame slavery, McCarthyism, prohibition, and other ills.

    44. Re:hate my country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the green party is closer to my views, a vote for the green party is one less vote for the lesser evil.

      Say all you want about voting for the lesser evil, but our voting method forces me to do that. If ~500 had voted for the lesser evil in florida we could have been spared GWB.

      So what?

      We voted in Obama and got a more articulate version of the same thing. After Obama i actually respect GWB a little more, at least he was honest about fucking 99% of the country.

      Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. --Jerry Garcia

    45. Re:hate my country by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Your country is not the one putting this forth. The current set of "leaders" is. Vote them out next Tuesday.

      2008 called, they want their optimism back

      ===
      I was rather impressed with the leader of the libertarian party, a former Republican. He said that the Republicans have lost their soul. He was for increased taxing of the rich, a true universal medical system, spending cuts for physical wars that are not better done economically.
      His high priority item is the deficit, which can topple the USA if it is not curtailed very very soon.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  6. what could go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they get hacked or something?

    1. Re:what could go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah... they all get their command-controls funnelled through Twitter.
      What can go wrong there?
      #Drone5347 TurnLeft

    2. Re:what could go wrong by stewsters · · Score: 2

      Just don't open any ports and hacking is much harder. Also don't install a web browser with java and flash plugins on your aircraft.

    3. Re:what could go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll want some way to control it yourself. So there will be an open communication channel.

  7. Plain View Doctrine by stevegee58 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Plain View Doctrine (or is it "Plane View"?) probably applies here unfortunately.

    1. Re:Plain View Doctrine by berashith · · Score: 1

      Everyone will just need to increase the diameter of their tin foil hats to about 4 to 6 feet, and never leave home without it.

    2. Re:Plain View Doctrine by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I think you have your numbers wrong.

      You need to increase your hat to 426 feet in radius to cover your property.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Plain View Doctrine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does the government have a right to put a camera over your house to monitor your activities? I say we need laws preventing private and public surveillance without the consent of the populace. It's one thing when I put up a security camera around my house; it's another thing when the government does it. Why? Because I can always take mine down.

    4. Re:Plain View Doctrine by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "The Plain View Doctrine (or is it "Plane View"?) probably applies here unfortunately."

      Perhaps on a Federal level. But state law here still makes it illegal to "surveil" someone's property from any vantage other than "a plain view from the street" or sidewalk. Meaning that even casual use of cameras in drones, over residential property, is illegal. Yes, even for law enforcement or military.

  8. If you don't think the police already have drones by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    You should sit in on a tasking meeting

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  9. First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's weird how "Drone" has become the word of choice among the general public. Maybe this was the inevitable backlash against the acronym politics. UAV, UAS, RPA, etc.

    3 acronyms for essentially the same thing for no other reason than cultural acceptance by the audience. UAV seemed like it was gaining traction and then the switch was made to UAS in order to get the focus away from the flashy air-frames and on to the total system as an integrated package. This distinction at first seems to undermine the push for platform agnostic inter-operable systems. Maybe it has streamlined purchase of ground control station equipment with monies appropriated for the Unmaned Aerial Vehicles?

    1. Re:First Post by paiute · · Score: 1

      Unmaned Aerial Vehicles?

      Pegasus = Maned Aerial Vehicle?

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  10. Can they mix with airplanes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where they have been flying hasn't had passenger airplanes?

  11. Welcome to the.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Home of the brave.

  12. Re:If you don't think the police already have dron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tell us more

  13. "Radio location system" by Solozerk · · Score: 3, Informative

    The "radio location system" they mention is probably ADS-B, which emits the position, speed, heading, etc... of planes every second.

    Interestingly enough, you can listen in on those with a 20$ tv tuner (software defined radio):
    http://www.irrational.net/2012/08/06/tracking-planes-for-20-or-less/

    So I guess the good news is at least that we'll be able to tell when and where the drones are flying... if this is abused enough, once could also imagine taking them done with DIY drones.

    1. Re:"Radio location system" by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      5 months before the ADS-B detector is added in to every radar detector and police scanner on the market.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    2. Re:"Radio location system" by Solozerk · · Score: 1

      once could also imagine taking them done with DIY drones.

      Meant to write "one could also imagine taking them down", of course...

  14. We need Hope & Change now more than ever!! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Funny

    This type of thing won't happen when Barack Obama is president!

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:We need Hope & Change now more than ever!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure Romney will roll this back because the right-wing hates police states.

    2. Re:We need Hope & Change now more than ever!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't the DoD just launch some drones to the moon? I'm sure they'll find that sneaky "Hope and Change" on the far side of the moon.

    3. Re:We need Hope & Change now more than ever!! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      I'm sure Romney will roll this back because the right-wing hates police states.

      If you're under the impression that my comment is in support of Romney, you're sadly mistaken. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

      However, it is widely ignored by the left all the bad things Obama has done while in office, even surpassing GWB in many things that the left used to complain about with GWB. Apparently Obama gets a free pass because he has a (D) after his name.

      Obama's drone strikes

      Obama's medical marijuana raids.

      Obama does not deserve the left's support, I would really encourage them to vote either Green Party or Libertarian Party this election if they find these types of things morally repugnant.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:We need Hope & Change now more than ever!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^ this

    5. Re:We need Hope & Change now more than ever!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. Re:If you don't think the police already have dron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should sit in on a tasking meeting

    Oh, we know. It's just that we don't agree with it. Is that so hard to understand?

  16. Who didn't see this coming? by AntiBasic · · Score: 2

    They told me if I voted for McCain, we'd see drones blanket our domestic airspace... and they were right.

    1. Re:Who didn't see this coming? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Who did you vote for in the primaries?

    2. Re:Who didn't see this coming? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Who are 'they'? I have never heard of 'them'.

  17. Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackable by kbonin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If domestic drones will be allowed in domestic civilian airspace as long as they carry active ADS-B transponders, then there are a number of receiver+software packages that would enable them to be tracked by anyone with some tech skills.

    Google "ADS-B receiver", one example: http://www.scannermaster.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=28-661518

  18. Re:If you don't think the police already have dron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  19. Cue the bootlickers.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminding us all how kooky we are, because the military and police have already been flying these things around us for years, and we're tinfoil-hat nutters if we don't like it.
     
    It's like saying that since I've already been punching you in the face for twenty minutes, I've established that it's OK and I shouldn't be compelled by any assault laws to stop it. Don't your knees hurt yet?

  20. Secret Bergman Handshakes. by bmo · · Score: 1

    JOE: Ask the cop on the corner...

    DC: Ask the cop in the grocery store...

    JOE: Ask the cop in the woodpile...

    DC: Ask the cop on the rooftop...

    JOE: Ask that cop that's knockin' at your back door...

    SOUND: Knocking.

    DC: Ask him!

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Secret Bergman Handshakes. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      (Ancient Firesign Theater for those not so generationally challenged).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  21. Just Saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.flightradar24.com/
    where will they fit?

  22. Pilots Soon To Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Make no mistake. As soon as the body of safety data gets large enough we will see the elimination of pilots on commercial air craft. Once it is established that the bots drones are safer than human pilots another trade will vanish. Commercial trucking is on the edge of eliminating human drivers already. The safty record looks good and computized drivers do not break rules, speed, or go mental from the boredom.
                        The purpose of technology has always been to eliminate human labor. The catch is that we have no social structure at hand to take care of the many millions being displaced by job losses due to better technologies.

    1. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of technology has always been to eliminate human labor. The catch is that we have no social structure at hand to take care of the many millions being displaced by job losses due to better technologies.

      We've always had such a social structure. It's called "leisure." When there's no work remaining to be done, play. Learn. Eat. Fuck. Be Hedonism-bot.

    2. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try unemployment for a few years and let us know how "leisurely" it is.

    3. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by jasnw · · Score: 2

      Really? I don't see an automated pilot handling that emergency landing in the Hudson River several years ago, nor handling that situation many years ago when a plane lost most of it's controls and was crash landed in Iowa saving the lives of many people on board. My concern with drones is not privacy so much as it is safety. I do not like the idea of unpiloted aircraft in the commercial airspace of this country except on very limited and very critical (not watching OJ run from the law) purposes, and I will never get on an airplane that does not have a live pilot in the cockpit who will die with me if the plane goes down.

    4. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      I will never get on an airplane that does not have a live pilot in the cockpit who will die with me if the plane goes down

      Well there could be a point when the computer gets too smart and crashes upside down or something to save the electronics while sacrificing the passengers, but I imagine that computers can be programmed to find sites to crash land, and I'm not sure that having pilots who can panic about their mortality is an advantage.

    5. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its far too complex for computers to resolve within the foreseeable future. Not to mention the complexity of the required sensor network is great. Expect pilots to remain in cockpits for at least the next fifty years.

    6. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The catch is that we have no social structure at hand to take care of the many millions being displaced by job losses due to better technologies.

      Suggest google-searching "Mincome". It was wildly successful. It'll never actually be used on a larger scale however, since that means less money for the people running the show. Gotta keep that 99% miserable and working their asses off... that twelfth yacht isn't going to buy itself.

    7. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      All technology, with the possible exception of vaccines, have advantages and disadvantages. And it's always a judgement call as to whether it's a good deal or not. Pilots and truckers would say no, travelers looking at potentially lower ticket prices, taxpayers looking at potentially less budget spent on the FAA, consumers looking at lower costs of goods would probably say yes.

      Unless these things were perceived as unsafe, be it through FUD campaigns based on isolated incidents or be it companies making these devices pushing them before they are sufficiently mature.

    8. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, at least 90% of the human pilots wouldn't be able to land in the Hudson River either.

      Computers can still be safer, even if they can't handle disasters well. They just need cause less disaster than humans, and humans are great at causing disasters.

    9. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well there could be a point when the computer gets too smart and crashes upside down or something to save the electronics while sacrificing the passengers

      That's not a smart AI, that's an egoistical AI. There is no reason to even give an ego to an AI, and much less reason to make it protect its ego.

    10. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by udachny · · Score: 0

      Well, here is how a transition period like that should be handled.

      If the gov't is prevented from collecting taxes on production, so no more income taxes, no more payroll taxes, no more corporate taxes, then the production is not going to be limited artificially by these impediments.

      If simultaneously the gov't is prevented from destroying the value of money, by printing them and by setting fake interest rates, then all of a sudden the gov't bonds become an attractive opportunity for people, who do not want to be in the stock market.

      Yes, most people shouldn't even be in the stock market, they are forced into the stock market by the gov't regulations and inflation.

      But if the bonds paid the real rates of return, then the majority of people could buy gov't bonds and hold on to them for the return, and that would mean that they would be bullish on the economy of their own country.

      So the taxes that still would be collected off the transactions (like sales taxes, duties, levies, they are very much Constitutional), these taxes could be used to pay the interest on the gov't bonds.

      Now, if the bonds paid the interest, maybe 5-6%, but there was no income taxes, no gov't regulations, then the growth of economy would directly mean more transactions, more taxes from those transactions, more taxes collected from consumption, because all legal taxes are really consumption taxes, not production taxes.

      This would mean that production would keep growing and the consumption would pay for consumption.

      ----

      Imagine that, a growing economy, more and more savings (high interest rates), so more and more credit available for various business ventures. The more business activity - the more taxes are collected from transactions.

      With high efficiencies in the business due to lack of gov't protections and regulations and thus lack of monopolies and price distortions, the people would be extremely productive, would be working much less than they are now, which, by the way, what the initial industrialization allowed in USA.

      People sometimes say: what would happen if ALL jobs were automated, all production would be automated? Well, people would be freed to come up with new things to produce, something that cannot be automated, because the concept doesn't exist yet.

      But what about the transition period? Well that is the point of owning part of the economy via the government bonds (or stock market) - you are invested in the economy with these bonds, stocks, and you are paid dividends.

      Dividends that are paid to the investors, and everybody becomes an investor.

      --

      So this is a very much Marxist utopia becomes a reality VIA FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.

      All production is owned by the people simply through investments. But the difference between this and all of the forced attempts at Communism and Socialism is that it is NOT FORCED.

      This is purely voluntarily, nobody is forced to buy investments, nobody is forced to buy gov't bonds, but if the bonds return a good rate, you'd be stupid not to be invested.

    11. Re:Pilots Soon To Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any takers for office space in 100 story buildings?

      Anyone?

      Hello?..

  23. Altitude? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Not every plane is equipped to receive those signals and not every plane is required to transmit those signals. I have friends whose planes don't even have a battery / electrical system (they use magnetic compass and vacuum gauges). So long as the drones stay above say 30,000 feet and takeoff / land only at certain airports I suppose they might not interfere.

    1. Re:Altitude? by JustNiz · · Score: 2

      I like your idea. The whole point of a drone is to (quietly) fly low and slow to see stuff. Having a law that requires drones to stay above 30k ft will basically render them useless. Good.

    2. Re:Altitude? by Avn_EE02 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if the drone is equipped with both ADS-B transmit and receive, and within range of a ground station, they will receive TIS-B data for the local area, which is essentially the same radar that traffic control sees. So as long as these drones are in ground station range, they will see your friends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/flashMap/index.cfm

    3. Re:Altitude? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Not every plane is equipped to receive those signals and not every plane is required to transmit those signals.

      The testing was done with drones so equipped, and I think the results point to the idea that drones WILL be required to have this. Commercial, passenger carrying aircraft will, and those are the aircraft over which a public uproar would commence when one is taken out by a drone. Most people won't care if those daredevil private pilots who are doing something patently unsafe to start with (ITHO) are endangered. Further, it is a desired goal of the FAA that all aircraft capable of having it will have it.

      So long as the drones stay above say 30,000 feet and takeoff / land only at certain airports I suppose they might not interfere.

      There are few airports that are above 30,000 feet (assuming you mean AGL and not just MSL or even ACE (above center of earth)). There are few aircraft that have no electrical systems above 18,000 feet MSL, which is the floor of Class A airspace. In Class A airspace, every aircraft is on an IFR flight plan, and it's far above the operational ceiling of the standard non-electrical systemed aircraft. It would be a good assumption that anyone above 18,000 ft will have ads-b or have chosen not to have it deliberately (if possible.)

  24. Drone Pro/Con by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pro: A drone could deliver you a pizza from your favorite joint across town during rush hour in five minutes.
    Con: It could also deliver hellfire missiles if you don't tip the operator.

  25. What, no "skynet" tag? by oracleofbargth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I the only person who is surprised that this story hasn't been tagged with "skynet"?

    1. Re:What, no "skynet" tag? by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

      It was, but then sky--t censored it. Oops, I forgot to post anonymously, I can hear the drone coming now...

      --
      I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  26. Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Partially, but many if not most aircraft dont implement it yet. Its especially unlikely that any general aviation aircraft (think cessna 172 and similar) will have it, and these are the aircraft that are most likely to be flying in the same airspace as a drone.

    ADS_B is part of FAA's Nexgen project. They will only require most aircraft to carry it by 2020.

    Personally I think this test will be a foregone conclusion for political reasons regardless of how actually safe it is.
     

  27. Aircraft sans transponders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ballons, gliders, hang gliders, paragliders, antique airplanes, light sport aircraft... lawnchairs... weatherballoons.

  28. Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab by duinsel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No need for skillz, there are websites [flightradar24.com] that track stuff for you. (At least their coverage for non-US flights is ADS-B based, real time, and collected from private contributing scanners AFAIK, US flights go through FAA)

  29. Politics will decide it not safety. by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    Personally I think this test will be a foregone conclusion for political reasons that drones will be deemed useable (even over cities) regardless of how actually safe it is.
    Its especially ironic considering the current air law prohibits pilots flying 'experimental' class aircraft or ultralights over cities or any built-up area.

    1. Re:Politics will decide it not safety. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just waiting for some clever citizen engineer to build a drone-killer. Maybe make it out of wood to keep it off radar. All it needs to do is place itself in the path of the drone and *boom*.

    2. Re:Politics will decide it not safety. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging from the Google Autonomous Car and some of the contrasting flight path data I've seen, fully autonomous vehicles are frequently less prone to error then their inconsistent, drug using, emotional, fatigued human pilots.

      Most commercial UAS(read micro-UAV w/micro price) are not autonomous and are generally just FPV RC vehicles with more redundancy(-optimism), and higher price tags justified by support contracts, warranties, cosmetic improvements, total-cost-of-ownership motivated diminishing-return component-quality improvements. Their most sophisticated autopilot functionalities are usually way-point navigation, GPS Loiter, Return to Base, Altitude Hold, and signal loss/component failure inspired controlled descents.

      These can all be lumped in to bidirectional telemetry and what the robotics field calls "localization". The higher level functionality typical of military vehicles & research is what is required for collision avoidance.

      Military vehicles like the predator drones aren't usually powered by lithium batteries but instead by petrol engines or turbines(sometimes fuel cells). Their effective range and flight times are usually orders of magnitude higher and their power plant can support the wing area, and hotel energy load required by accessories such as 1000W Radars, pan-tilt heads, FLIR imaging systems, & single board computer based vision processing CPUs.

      These vehicles are capable of systems like TERCOM, DSMAC, INS, TCAS, GPWS, GCWS, TAWS, & precision GPS, and can be outfitting to require human pilot intervention exclusively during takeoff/landing or not at all.

      This class of vehicle is what is being discussed, and are being considered for applications such as air-freight/cargo transport, border patrol(already in operation with FAA COA), forestry service/BLM, Homeland Security patrols of critical infrastructure.

    3. Re:Politics will decide it not safety. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Judging from the Google Autonomous Car and some of the contrasting flight path data I've seen, fully autonomous vehicles are frequently less prone to error then their inconsistent, drug using, emotional, fatigued human pilots.

      Most commercial UAS(read micro-UAV w/micro price) are not autonomous and are generally just FPV RC vehicles with more redundancy(-optimism), and higher price tags justified by support contracts, warranties, cosmetic improvements, total-cost-of-ownership motivated diminishing-return component-quality improvements. Their most sophisticated autopilot functionalities are usually way-point navigation, GPS Loiter, Return to Base, Altitude Hold, and signal loss/component failure inspired controlled descents.

      These can all be lumped in to bidirectional telemetry and what the robotics field calls "localization". The higher level functionality typical of military vehicles & research is what is required for collision avoidance.

      Military vehicles like the predator drones aren't usually powered by lithium batteries but instead by petrol engines or turbines(sometimes fuel cells). Their effective range and flight times are usually orders of magnitude higher and their power plant can support the wing area, and hotel energy load required by accessories such as 1000W Radars, pan-tilt heads, FLIR imaging systems, & single board computer based vision processing CPUs.

      These vehicles are capable of systems like TERCOM, DSMAC, INS, TCAS, GPWS, GCWS, TAWS, & precision GPS, and can be outfitting to require human pilot intervention exclusively during takeoff/landing or not at all.

      This class of vehicle is what is being discussed, and are being considered for applications such as air-freight/cargo transport, border patrol(already in operation with FAA COA), forestry service/BLM, Homeland Security patrols of critical infrastructure.

      OK, so all of those acronyms are supposed to make me feel better?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Politics will decide it not safety. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That largely depends on your rationality and familiarity with the application of statistics.

      Those acronyms are all components that combined can be integrated in to a system. This integration process can be conducted to include virtually unlimited levels of redundancy and fail-over based on customer risk aversion preferences. The only real limitations being the engineering considerations of weight, volume, and energy consumption, which was the point of my first post. What is practical is a matter of diminishing returns and the business case offered by the additional cost.

      The failure rates of the above systems are measurable in a very quantifiable way, as are the failure rates of human pilots. Almost all of these technologies have existed for quite some time, and as a result sufficient data should exist to predict their probability of failure with close to the same degree of accuracy that allows actuaries to turn a profit for their employers in the insurance industry.

      When that failure rate falls below that of human pilots under comparable & realistic test conditions, any objection based on safety becomes an emotional one rather than one based on the facts.

      Phrased as a personality test, how many improbably Fukashimas are you willing to tolerate in order to mitigate the certain damage done by coal emissions? This cost benefit analysis becomes increasingly trivial as the contrasting choices become more lopsided in favor of one option. A reasonable person would gladly accept a single 747 crash once every 5000 years in exchange for giving up the sense of control offered by the familiarity of placing trust in a inconsistent & fallible pair of human pilots.

      Basically, all of this critical thinking will essentially be done for you by liability insurance companies and the businesses considering the adoption of the technology. By the time a large institution is exposing themselves to the risks presented by asking the public to embrace unmanned systems as a technology, you can probably rest assured that the new systems will be indisputably superior to tradition on all merits. Cargo transport over water is a low risk demonstration theater to bridge this gap, and as congress continues to twist the FAAs arm on this issue, I expect international/trans-ocean cargo transport will be one of the earliest applications for commercial implementation.

    5. Re:Politics will decide it not safety. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> fully autonomous vehicles are frequently less prone to error then their inconsistent, drug using, emotional, fatigued human pilots.

      Thats why there are laws in place to make sure pilots and drivers are not DUI or fatigued.

      There's no way an autonomous vehicle would independently come up with a creative decision like purposely landing a faulty plane in a river, like that pilot did a couple of years ago which saved like 300 peoples lives, not to mention the damage to whatever suburban area the plane would have otherwise hit.

  30. Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab by captainpanic · · Score: 1

    If I were the military, then I would argue that the drones are able to avoid any aircraft, and therefore do not need to carry a transponder themselves.

  31. Speaking of local enforcement drones.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Logically local and county law enforcement agencies will not be able to deploy high altitude, costly drones and will likely deploy lower cost, low altitude drones. I wonder how long before a collision with a private aircraft occurs? I fly and it scares me that someone, who has little actual flight time, could pilot a drone where he shouldn't and cause a fatality. I am hoping they stay away from incoming and outgoing paths and stay BELOW private airspace. They should be required to follow a similar avoidance protocol that small aircraft abide by for airports. Basically the forbidden space looks like an upside down tiered cake. It's all about the training and I pray they don't skimp on training the local blue boys.

    1. Re:Speaking of local enforcement drones.... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      I don't know why there's all this grousing on the message thread! Can't you see?

      The title of the submission tells everything needed to know: America is making drones safer!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Speaking of local enforcement drones.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am hoping they stay away from incoming and outgoing paths and stay BELOW private airspace.

      Given that Class E airspace usually bottoms out at 1200 ft above ground level and Class G airspace extends down to ground level, staying below it will be problematic.

    3. Re:Speaking of local enforcement drones.... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I fly and it scares me that someone, who has little actual flight time, could pilot a drone where he shouldn't and cause a fatality.

      I fly, and I'm more concerned with the newly minted sport and recreational pilots who also have little actual flight time and are piloting other people AND heavier, less maneuverable machines.

    4. Re:Speaking of local enforcement drones.... by srbell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm also a pilot. Yes, sport and rec pilots may not have a lot of time (at least not those with new certificates) but they do have "skin" in it, unlike the drone pilots. A drone pilot probably isnt faced with injury or death if he crashes.

    5. Re:Speaking of local enforcement drones.... by cusco · · Score: 1

      I pray they don't skimp on training the local blue boys

      The local cops will not be terribly interested in the additional training. They're cops, everyone is supposed to bow down and get out of their way! They're almost certainly going to extend their current mindset vertically, they're not going to want to learn a new way of thinking. The exceptions of course will be the guys who are already private pilots, but I don't worry much about them.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    6. Re:Speaking of local enforcement drones.... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      but they do have "skin" in it, unlike the drone pilots.

      Having "skin" in it is more likely to create a situation for panic. The kinds of planes flown by those with "skin" in it are unlikely to have autopilots capable of handling things for any significant amount of time, if at all, and the person who may or may not be sitting next to the one with the "skin" in it will likely not be another pilot who can help him out.

      And, as I already said, the one with "skin" in it is flying a less maneuverable aircraft, in large part because it has been built to not kill the one who has "skin" in it when he does something stupid. G-limits in most aircraft are there to protect the airframe, but they are also much lower than what would harm the pilot and passengers. (High-G military and racing aircraft are the notable exception.)

      In short, the pilot of a drone can move faster and get out of the way of something else faster because the lighter smaller drone will have higher G limits, allowing steeper, faster dives. Even if the G limits of the airframe are exceeded nobody will die. Cutting power and diving for the ground will be an available avoidance mode for drones; it will be a fatal, unlikely choice for the LSA pilot with few hours.

      But overall, the point I think was lost is that saying "low time" as an excuse against drones also applies to human pilots who are in the planes they fly. Pilots who make such an argument are arguing for upping the hours required to get a pilot's license, too, and if they complain loudly enough I'm sure the non-pilot public will he happy to join them in demanding more training for new pilots of all types.

    7. Re:Speaking of local enforcement drones.... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Is that before or after they're equipped with weapons?

    8. Re:Speaking of local enforcement drones.... by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      Even if the G limits of the airframe are exceeded nobody will die. Cutting power and diving for the ground will be an available avoidance mode for drones;

      That all depends on where the hardware lands and/or what it hits on the way down though doesn't it?

    9. Re:Speaking of local enforcement drones.... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      You're either with us, or against us!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  32. When will the first mid-air collision occur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who's fault will it be? How many people will it kill?

    Nevermind the whole 4th amendment and all the other privacy implications, these are dangerous!

    They say "once ADS-B is widely deployed", unless ADS-B is 100% deployed and 100% reliable, these things will run into other aircraft. I know there is a mandate by the FAA to have the whole fleet of aircraft in the US be ADS-B out by 2020, but that won't happen. Some aircraft don't have any electrical system (IE sailplanes), so they will be exempted from the mandate, while flying outside of controlled airspace and won't have ADS-B out. See and avoid will work for manned aircraft, but not for drones (who is seeing).

    See and avoid doesn't work for manned aircraft 100%, automated systems don't work 100%. There is no good reason to put unmanned aircraft in civilian airspace. The cost argument fails, since they cost as much or more than light aircraft. The danger argument fails, since they are dangerous to everyone but the pilot (when they crash where do they land?).

    Spookey times we live in.

  33. They are flying by raind · · Score: 2

    Around Lake St. Clair, from SANG

    http://www.127wg.ang.af.mil/

    --
    Get up!
  34. Super! by endus · · Score: 2

    Because we TOTALLY need drones in domestic airspace to protect us against ______________.

    1. Re:Super! by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      They will find a target. It's only a matter of time before a hellfire missile is used on a domestic target. And as others have said, it won't matter who you vote for next week.

    2. Re:Super! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama has already targeted Americans and killed them with drone strikes, even accidental killings of Americans; that's not even including civilians of other countries he's killed.

    3. Re:Super! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

    4. Re:Super! by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      ...protect us against terrorists.

      There, completed it for you. Wasn't it obvious enough?

    5. Re:Super! by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that happened on foreign soil. People feel disconnected from it when it's happening on the other side of an ocean. When the house next door blows up, its going to start getting more real to people.

    6. Re:Super! by endus · · Score: 1

      But what about illegal aliens? Or maybe Socialists? Liberal University Intellectuals? Bible Thumping Hicks? Lawful Gun Owners?

      The potential applications are limitless! The only thing they won't protect us from is ourselves.

  35. Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Anyone up for building an anti-drone that homes in on ADS-B transponder signals? Takes a drone to kill a drone!

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  36. Legitimate uses of drones by SirGarlon · · Score: 1
    Everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that drones will be used for law enforcement. That's a valid concern, of course, but one can imagine legitimate uses of unmanned aircraft:
    • crop dusting
    • search and rescue / emergency response
    • precision agriculture
    • communication relays
    • weather monitoring
    • wildlife research
    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Legitimate uses of drones by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      Yes because armed predator drones are so good at crop dusting (using sarin), search and rescue (contacts sighted, shall we light them up?), communication relays (2 confirmed kills, over), etc.

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    2. Re:Legitimate uses of drones by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Aerial photography?
      Traffic monitoring and alerting?

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
  37. Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab by kbonin · · Score: 2

    I would imagine that if this evolves it will end up having constraints attached to it along the lines of the prohibitions on retransmitting or relaying information from other protected radio frequencies. While there are useful reasons to translate and distribute general flight tracking information, I'd be willing to bet that either these services are forced to omit law enforcement transponders altogether, or there will be automated gag orders on such sites regarding to drones under certain circumstances such as pending activity (selective availability on drone tracking data?)

    In any case, I would imagine that if you want accurate local drone data you'll have to collect it yourself.

    As others have now posted this is possible on the cheap: RTL-SDR software over DVB-T dongles based on Realtek RTL2832U (supposedly as cheap as $20) provide a receiver, and GNU Radio with gr-air-modes gives you decoded ADS-B data streams on a decent PC.

  38. Dark Angel by smprather · · Score: 2

    Remember the ever present police hover craft in the dystopian future of Jessica Alba's backside?

    1. Re:Dark Angel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry I lost you at "Jessica Alba's backside". You were saying something about hovercraft booty?

  39. Don't forget civilian drones ! by NinjaTekNeeks · · Score: 1

    Sure mine won't be as classy as the military grade drones. But I'll still be able to do some cool stuff...

    - Follow the police around and see what they are up to all day
    - Follow the local politicians around to see who's working and who's dicking around all day
    - Watch fireworks from above
    - Drop politically motivated leaflets
    - Provide a roving 3g/4g hotspot anywhere I want

    Possibilities for this are endless.... Go Forth my Drone Army!!!!!

  40. Re:hate 2 party system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want my Way Back machine to go back and vote for Ross Perot. Seemingly a nut case at the time, we have all heard the giant "sucking sound", he warned of, on the US economy.

  41. THERE'S NO SUCH THING by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 2

    THERE IS NO PREDATOR B!

    IT'S AN MQ-9 REAPER!

    Calling it "Predator B" just leads to confusion, as the production model of the Predator is the MQ-1B, the follow-on to the prototype RQ-1A.

    This causes no end of frustration on an almost daily basis at work...

    Besides all this, the aircraft in the article was a Guardian, which makes calling it a "Predator B" even more inane.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    1. Re:THERE'S NO SUCH THING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The folks at General Atomics refer to it as the Pred B, The Reaper name is the Air Force name.

    2. Re:THERE'S NO SUCH THING by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the next time I speak w/ someone at GA I'm going to shake my fist very angrily at them for making my life hard by trying to ride on the branding for their first UAS.

      Think about it this way: You all know PHBs that probably refer to all tablet computers as iPads. Imagine they tell you to get "the new iPad," so you buy the 4th gen iPad for them. And then they say "No I wanted the new iPad Samsung put out!" So you get them a Nexus 10 and then they want to know why they can't run their iOS apps on it...

      Now replace the iPads with Predator/Reaper 3D models, and you've gotten a small glimpse of what I deal with... :|

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  42. Spot and avoid is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For IFR traffic, the traffic management system is supposed to keep them apart anyway.

    For VFR traffic, the required sensor is visual, not everything out there has electronic markers on it.

    Spot and avoid sounds like visually see and avoid, which is not what they have.

    Seems like if they were proud of the new system they are suggesting,
          then they would not choose words to make it sound like they support the current system.

    Air traffic is supposed to use both visual and electronic means to avoid

  43. Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Far more than ADS-B is required to prevent air collisions. Furthermore, this is squarely setting up to blame pilots for deaths caused by drones. Pilots are required to "see and avoid." Many drones are small, hard to see, and damn near invisible in the air. Expect that to continue in the future; meaning smaller and harder to see. Even with ADS-B, pilots are now 50% more likely to have a mid air event.

    A 50% decrease is air safety is by no means a step in the right direction. Yet, that's where corporations, police enforncement, and the DoD want to push things.

    If you believe innocent people have the right to not be murdered by law enforcement, corporations, and the DoD, then you are against drones in most US airspace. ...off soap box...

  44. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how long until the first drone is shot down over some ranch in west Texas?

  45. the keyword is Predator Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one is mentioning this declared fact. It's testing PREDATOR drones.
    George Orwell could have never imagined the implications, but it does not take a genius to figure out;
    We will be stopping our fleeing suspects with an airstrike.
    What will the warning sound like? Stop or you're toast!
    There will be some sort of "security reason" for the operation.
    Investors are scrambling. What a world we have built.
    Scare the people, then sell them "protection."

  46. A good thing by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Drones brought democracy to Afghanistan, what's not to like?

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    1. Re:A good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's somewhat amusing in a twisted way.

      Single minded pilots ultimately caused research into single minded drones.

      Was it jealousy of the terrorists capabilities?

  47. Re:New Boss same as Old Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  48. Re:Protected by Law by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Anyone reading your list can see that the Police Protective Guild or some SuperPAC will ensure that our Fearless Leaders will close all the pertinent loopholes in the law so as to felonize any civilian uses.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  49. Anti-personnel drones.... by kawabago · · Score: 1

    ...all we need now is Skynet and Romney's eyes to start glowing red!

  50. -=[MPU]=- MOD PARENT UP!!! -=[MPU]=- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^ sanity

  51. Re:Inanity by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    All pedantry aside, the "Guardian" (...Reminds me of "To Protect and Serve", brilliant connotation!) is an unarmed(?) model of the "MQ-1B".

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  52. I was waterboarded by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Waterboarding specifically attempts to avoid water entering the nose, mouth, and airways.

    Waterboarding can be done without water entering the victims body, but it can also include procedures where a funnel or syringe is used to dribble water into the back of the victims throat.

    Many years ago I went through SERE training, and I was waterboarded as part of the training. The instructors used the less severe method of pouring water onto a cloth covering my mouth and nose. We were given two small dumbells, one to hold in each hand, and told that when it became "unbearable" to just drop the weights and the cloth would be removed. We had a mixture of Navy and Marine personnel, and to give us an extra incentive to last as long as possible they did us one-at-a-time in front of the whole class. I didn't care if I held out longer than the other jarheads, but I was determined not to let any of the "squids" outlast me.

    I tried to resist as long as I could, but soon it felt like someone was shooting a blowtorch into my lungs. I would have done anything to make it stop. I was single at the time, but today I have two kids. If I the only way to make it stop was a button that would kill my kids, I think I would push that button. It was that bad. It was certainly enough to make me betray my country and comrades, and no one who hasn't been through it should judge that.

    Is it torture? I think it depends on your definition. I had no permanent harm or injury. I think the best answer is to ask if we would consider it torture if it was done to a captured American soldier.

    Also, torture can and does result in useful information. Its just not reliable information. There is a difference.

    Very true. Anyone who says "torture doesn't work" is clueless. The whole point of our training was to show that it works very well, and expecting anyone to "tough it out" is futile. Instead we need to compartmentalize information on a "need-to-know" basis, and assume that when someone is captured, everything they know is compromised.

    There are plenty of methods for getting reliable information. If you have partial information, you can check extracted info against that. Some extracted info can be quickly verified against existing intelligence. If you capture three people, separate them, and continue to torture all three until their stories match up. You can use drugs to help break down resistance, and cloud the detainee's mind so it is difficult to keep the lies consistent. Sodium barbital works well, and can be combined with pain enhancers such as naloxone. If you don't have the drugs available, waterboarding a detainee who is severely sleep deprived works almost as well, but takes more time.

    1. Re:I was waterboarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That torture does't work is irrelevant. It is the ultimate power trip. Why kill a prisoner when you can torture them? Instead of a one shot power boost, torture gives a kick every time. Unfortunately, like most drugs, the effect diminshes so the degree of torure has to increase over time for the same kick.

  53. Re:Inanity by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    You sure? I though the Guardian is a maritime version of the MQ-9 deployed by Customs & Border Patrol out of Cape Canaveral. At least, all the articles I can find about it refer to it as an MQ-9.

    And yeah, it's supposedly unarmed, which would make it an RQ-9, unless it still has the mounting brackets to carry weapons... Which would be kinda disturbing...

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  54. Re:If you don't think the police already have dron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have sat on a tasking meeting, my local cops dont.

  55. Pos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be carful what you say. The powers that be are more focused on taking your 1st and 4th amendment rights away. Its so sad that we the people let it get this far... And all we can do is continue to argue and post comments about these kinds of things. Where is the accountability? In the election? Didn't fix it last time or the time before that.

  56. Open Source GPS Spoofer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or at least enough information to build one? The first person who brings down a domestic drone will become an instant hero and a legendary patriot.

  57. Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab by cusco · · Score: 1

    Civilian aircraft carry transponders that use the same signals, you might want to re-think that one.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  58. D'oh! by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Actually, you were correct and I wasn't.

    This causes no end of frustration on an almost daily basis at work...

    Others were falsely linking the A with the B, and I went ahead and bollixed them up 'cause they were 9s.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  59. A new sport for model-making amateurs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drone hunt!

  60. Half-life 2 by osiaq · · Score: 1

    Reminds me those flying crap cameras in City 17. They always made me blind for a second.

  61. They're already flying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Blue Ridge GA about 100 miles away from Atlanta and Dobbins AFB and NAS. The area I live in is a pratice air space and its common to see low flying jets for time to time (tree top). About a month ago I was outside and heard and incoming jet and looked up and there was a drone hauling ass at tree top level. It then made a turn that would make any pilot pass out and took off the the North. There REALLY friggin big!

    Really scary shit.
    Be afraid... be very afraid.