Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Welcome to the USSA : "Congress has told the FAA that the agency must allow civilian and military drones to fly in civilian airspace by September 2015"   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, FAA, congresses, aerospace industry, National Air Traffic Controllers Association, unmanned aircraft, Predator drone, airspace, University of Nebraska  
•       •       •

2261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Feb 2012 at 3:34 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



283 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-02-27 11:44:40 AM  
Pro: Now I can spy on my hot neighbors

Con: I'll have an election bot flying down my street telling me to vote or else I'll have to report to a "happy camp"
 
2012-02-27 11:46:52 AM  
great...so now the state and local cops can spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.
 
2012-02-27 12:12:37 PM  
I bet there will be an App that will tell you where they are droning. Then they will make that App illegal.

/i like apples
 
2012-02-27 12:13:30 PM  
And yet, for some reason, we pretend we're above societies that create things like secret police and the Stasi.
 
2012-02-27 12:17:45 PM  
How is forcing allowance of drone flights socialist? USSA is usually used for United Socialist States of America. Farking retarded headline is farking retarded.
 
2012-02-27 12:19:41 PM  

Aarontology: And yet, for some reason, we pretend we're above societies that create things like secret police and the Stasi.


no, we actually get hostile when told that local cop shops are becoming more military and law enforcement in general is becoming more invasive and authoritarian. THEN we pretend that we're above those other societies, because we KNOW that it can't happen here. CNN and Fox News tell us this every day.

Anyone who spends more than 10 min watching the footage from last years OWS protests understands that the cops here can be just as brutal as any third world police force and for much the same reasons as their third world counterparts.
 
2012-02-27 12:20:52 PM  

Weaver95: no, we actually get hostile when told that local cop shops are becoming more military and law enforcement in general is becoming more invasive and authoritarian. THEN we pretend that we're above those other societies, because we KNOW that it can't happen here. CNN and Fox News tell us this every day.


It's amazing, really.

They do it right in front of our eyes, and people just go "well, it won't happen to me"
 
2012-02-27 12:23:39 PM  
all is well friend citizen, ignore the screaming. Here, have an extra ration of Hot Fun.
 
2012-02-27 12:24:27 PM  

Aarontology: Weaver95: no, we actually get hostile when told that local cop shops are becoming more military and law enforcement in general is becoming more invasive and authoritarian. THEN we pretend that we're above those other societies, because we KNOW that it can't happen here. CNN and Fox News tell us this every day.

It's amazing, really.

They do it right in front of our eyes, and people just go "well, it won't happen to me"


my favorite part? when someone accuses me of being a tin foil hat wearing paranoid...and they usually do so in the middle of a discussion thread about 'internet kill switches' or yet another case of secret government watch lists and warrantless wire taps.
 
2012-02-27 12:41:24 PM  

Weaver95: Anyone who spends more than 10 min watching the footage from last years OWS protests understands that the cops here can be just as brutal as any third world police force and for much the same reasons as their third world counterparts.


Yeah, remember all those protesters being shot and killed? And all those people who got beaten within an inch of their lives?

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

You have a point, but it's wrapped in too much bullsh*t hyperbole.
 
2012-02-27 12:46:20 PM  
Home anti-drone defense system
www.fas.org
/s hot gun
 
2012-02-27 12:48:48 PM  

Sid_6.7:
Yeah, remember all those protesters being shot and killed? And all those people who got beaten within an inch of their lives?

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.


actually, yeah - it DID happen. well, the 'beaten within an inch of their lives' part anyways. And people have been shot by police at OWS protests (mostly with gas cannisters to the head at close range) but I don't think anyone died. couple/few comas, lots of hospital visits and a bunch of coverups after the fact...but no deaths yet. I think we'll see cops murdering protesters this summer though.

You have a point, but it's wrapped in too much bullsh*t hyperbole.

I wish it was nothing but hyperbole. we'll see how the summer protest season goes though. who knows? I might be wrong after all.
 
2012-02-27 12:53:35 PM  

ManateeGag: all is well friend citizen, ignore the screaming. Here, have an extra ration of Hot Fun.


Time to call up your friends from Death Leopard.
 
2012-02-27 02:17:01 PM  
You know what happens next. The troops show up. This is not tinfoil hat bullshiat. This will happen to keep us safe. Link (new window)
 
2012-02-27 02:39:42 PM  

Weaver95: I think we'll see cops murdering protesters this summer though.


The lack of fatal police brutality is not the result of a moral and just system, though. You see people who were against OWS saying the same thing that Freepers say when the subject of assassination comes up, and it's not "That would be wrong". It's "They don't need a martyr."
 
2012-02-27 02:43:14 PM  
Technology's a biatch, huh guys?

The main concern of the FAA is the danger of these vehicles to manned aircraft.

From the article there seems to be valid commercial and law enforcement uses. And of course anything can be abused. It's going to take a lot of legal wrangling.
 
2012-02-27 02:44:28 PM  

Sid_6.7: Weaver95: Anyone who spends more than 10 min watching the footage from last years OWS protests understands that the cops here can be just as brutal as any third world police force and for much the same reasons as their third world counterparts.

Yeah, remember all those protesters being shot and killed? And all those people who got beaten within an inch of their lives?

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

You have a point, but it's wrapped in too much bullsh*t hyperbole.


Except it did. Even at little protests. Remember the Nashville reporter who got beaten on camera while screaming he was a reporter? Yeah, no violence at all.
 
2012-02-27 03:02:01 PM  
So...um...stoners...you might want to move your pot plants indoors.
 
2012-02-27 03:16:37 PM  
I'm sorry... I can't help myself... It just popped into my head...


Who can it be knocking at my door?
Go 'way, don't come 'round here no more.
Can't you see that it's late at night?
I'm very tired, and I'm not feeling right.
All I wish is to be alone;
Stay away, don't you invade my home.
Best off if you hang outside,
Don't come in - I'll only run and hide.

Who can it be now?
Who can it be now?
Who can it be now?
Who can it be now?

Who can it be knocking at my door?
Make no sound, tip-toe across the floor.
If he hears, he'll knock all day,
I'll be trapped, and here I'll have to stay.
I've done no harm, I keep to myself;
There's nothing wrong with my state of mental health.
I like it here with my childhood friend;
Here they come, those feelings again!

Who can it be now?
Who can it be now?
Who can it be now?
Who can it be now?

Is it the man come to take me away?
Why do they follow me?
It's not the future that I can see,
It's just my fantasy
 
2012-02-27 03:19:53 PM  
But.. But it has 'Patriot' in its name...

/Patriot Act needs to be renamed 'GOP-communist-crap-that-we-will-use-to-control-and-spy-on-whomever-wh enever-we-want-and-the-DEMS-will-follow-our-lead-because-power-is-a-dr ug-now-bend-over-citizen Act.
 
2012-02-27 03:21:48 PM  
from a privacy standpoint, how is this different from the helicopters and satellites that civilian and law enforcement organizations already have access to?
 
2012-02-27 03:28:02 PM  

thomps: from a privacy standpoint, how is this different from the helicopters and satellites that civilian and law enforcement organizations already have access to?


It's cheaper and makes it easier.

But otherwise nothing.
 
2012-02-27 03:34:52 PM  
The police are now a military fighting force. It is ridiculous.

i798.photobucket.com

I bet they rig that thing to drop tear gas.
 
2012-02-27 03:35:07 PM  

thomps: from a privacy standpoint, how is this different from the helicopters and satellites that civilian and law enforcement organizations already have access to?


Quantity. Quality. Availability. Just to name a few.

This just made it much easier for local government to have more personal knowledge of your life and those around you.

Of course, if you like having your local cops know what you fap to, that is your call.
 
2012-02-27 03:37:25 PM  
FTA: Heads up: Drones are going mainstream.

I liked drones back when they were being developed underground. You probably didn't hear of them then.
 
2012-02-27 03:37:34 PM  

Merkin Ball: thomps: from a privacy standpoint, how is this different from the helicopters and satellites that civilian and law enforcement organizations already have access to?

Quantity. Quality. Availability. Just to name a few.

This just made it much easier for local government to have more personal knowledge of your life and those around you.

Of course, if you like having your local cops know what you fap to, that is your call.


they're going to put unmanned drones in my computer? i guess i'll just have to start fapping to the online directory of my local police department to show them who's boss.
 
2012-02-27 03:38:10 PM  
You're right, subby. It's img1.fark.net that you think Faux "News" is reliable source.

Thanks for giving them their needed page clicks. They will reward you one day for your loyalty.
 
2012-02-27 03:38:41 PM  

Weaver95: great...so now the state and local cops can spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.


They do that already.
 
2012-02-27 03:39:02 PM  
As long as it targets Tea Party descendints I'm cool with it.
 
2012-02-27 03:39:18 PM  
Hasn't anyone figured out a way to hack these things yet?
 
2012-02-27 03:40:50 PM  
how do they move them around now? they can't just fly it from one spot to another?
 
2012-02-27 03:42:41 PM  

Strik3r: Hasn't anyone figured out a way to hack these things yet?


That's what I wonder. I figure some people will do it for fun. And gaining control of one of those things could be awesome/terrifying depending on if they're armed and if the person hijacking them is in it for the lulz or really wants to prove a point.

(I would just make it do loop-de-loops and hope I can make the guys watching the video feed puke)
 
2012-02-27 03:44:32 PM  

Strik3r: Hasn't anyone figured out a way to hack these things yet?


a.abcnews.com
 
2012-02-27 03:44:37 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Strik3r: Hasn't anyone figured out a way to hack these things yet?

That's what I wonder. I figure some people will do it for fun. And gaining control of one of those things could be awesome/terrifying depending on if they're armed and if the person hijacking them is in it for the lulz or really wants to prove a point.


Just as importantly, they are susceptible to jamming as well as hacking. The former is likely how Iran brought down that drone.
 
2012-02-27 03:45:47 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Strik3r: Hasn't anyone figured out a way to hack these things yet?

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]


holy sh*t, that dude tamed it like in avatar, we're all f*cked!
 
2012-02-27 03:45:58 PM  

Merkin Ball: Quantity. Quality. Availability. Just to name a few.


Doesn't the "no expectation of privacy in public" thing still apply though? If the cops want to see me walking down the street in broad daylight where everyone else can see me.. I guess they're welcome to do that. This doesn't allow anything that wasn't already allowed before.
 
2012-02-27 03:46:26 PM  
Fears of misuse aside, is there literally ANYONE who is surprised that a useful new technology is getting greenlit?
 
2012-02-27 03:46:32 PM  

Backwards Cornfield Races: Pro: Now I can spy on my hot neighbors


Darth_Lukecash: From the article there seems to be valid commercial and law enforcement uses. And of course anything can be abused.



I foresee many fark discussions in our future as these two ideas come together in practice...
 
2012-02-27 03:48:08 PM  
My house has a sunroof, so this summer, I shall spend lots of quality time on the roof, with no pants on, fapping.

Enjoy.
 
2012-02-27 03:48:49 PM  

LasersHurt: Fears of misuse aside, is there literally ANYONE who is surprised that a useful new technology is getting greenlit?


Considering our government is still having problems seeing trains as a good idea, yes. I am surprised.
 
2012-02-27 03:50:29 PM  

sprawl15: LasersHurt: Fears of misuse aside, is there literally ANYONE who is surprised that a useful new technology is getting greenlit?

Considering our government is still having problems seeing trains as a good idea, yes. I am surprised.


If only mass transit was part of the police department...
 
2012-02-27 03:51:55 PM  

Headso: sprawl15: LasersHurt: Fears of misuse aside, is there literally ANYONE who is surprised that a useful new technology is getting greenlit?

Considering our government is still having problems seeing trains as a good idea, yes. I am surprised.

If only mass transit was part of the police department...


If we let DHS/the TSA set up security checkpoints and whatnot at train stations, I'm sure we'd see a sudden surge in Federal funding towards the development of rail power.
 
2012-02-27 03:52:49 PM  
This is clearly Bush's fault!
 
2012-02-27 03:53:34 PM  
Military can put IR cameras and the weed grow houses will shine like diamonds in the sky.

Coincidentally, the police will get an "anonymous tip" those specific houses with 99% accuracy
 
2012-02-27 03:53:50 PM  
Who's got civilian drones?
 
2012-02-27 03:54:04 PM  
speaking of drones: i love the Roomba, but I am waiting for the day that it turns on my family.

/it already terrorizes the dog
//is my dad next?
 
2012-02-27 03:54:09 PM  
t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-02-27 03:54:34 PM  

GAT_00: How is forcing allowance of drone flights socialist? USSA is usually used for United Socialist States of America. Farking retarded headline is farking retarded.


This.
 
2012-02-27 03:55:03 PM  

thomps: from a privacy standpoint, how is this different from the helicopters and satellites that civilian and law enforcement organizations already have access to?


Some of these are small enough to hover outside of your second floor window and record you without your knowledge. Not that would be my main concern. I'd be more worried about one of these crashing into my house or falling out of the sky.
 
2012-02-27 03:55:14 PM  

Merkin Ball: thomps: from a privacy standpoint, how is this different from the helicopters and satellites that civilian and law enforcement organizations already have access to?

Quantity. Quality. Availability. Just to name a few.

This just made it much easier for local government to have more personal knowledge of your life and those around you.

Of course, if you like having your local cops know what you fap to, that is your call.


You seem to be under the impression that these drones are inexpective and easy to operate. And usable without a warrant. You can't track people now without one, so why do you believe that drone tracking would be any different?
 
2012-02-27 03:55:34 PM  

Sid_6.7: And all those people who got beaten within an inch of their lives?

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.


Scott Olsen would tell you to fark off, but it'd probably come out like "phllkvvv".

Me, I'll just call you a revisionist jackass.
 
2012-02-27 03:56:22 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Who's got civilian drones?


img688.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-27 03:57:03 PM  
www.wilderness-survival.net
 
2012-02-27 03:58:00 PM  

PanicMan: Some of these are small enough to hover outside of your second floor window and record you without your knowledge. Not that would be my main concern. I'd be more worried about one of these crashing into my house or falling out of the sky.


I agree those new fangled flying machines are a menace. If God meant man to fly he's have given us wings!
 
2012-02-27 03:58:24 PM  

Sid_6.7: Weaver95: Anyone who spends more than 10 min watching the footage from last years OWS protests understands that the cops here can be just as brutal as any third world police force and for much the same reasons as their third world counterparts.

Yeah, remember all those protesters being shot and killed? And all those people who got beaten within an inch of their lives?

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

You have a point, but it's wrapped in too much bullsh*t hyperbole.


Link (new window)
 
2012-02-27 03:58:25 PM  

sprawl15: Headso: sprawl15: LasersHurt: Fears of misuse aside, is there literally ANYONE who is surprised that a useful new technology is getting greenlit?

Considering our government is still having problems seeing trains as a good idea, yes. I am surprised.

If only mass transit was part of the police department...

If we let DHS/the TSA set up security checkpoints and whatnot at train stations, I'm sure we'd see a sudden surge in Federal funding towards the development of rail power.


Maybe that is the compromise the left can bring to the table:

"ok, guys, we want a more robust mass transit system and in return we will let you violate the rights of every.single.person. who rides it except young boys"

Then they can hold out for high speed rail using the young boys as a bargaining chip.
 
2012-02-27 04:00:08 PM  
I'm running low on outrage fuel. I was farking 14 on 9/11/2001. I was a stupid farking high school freshman who had no idea what the fark was going on around me. And stupid farking high school freshman iteration of me was able to see the escalation of authoritarianism. God Bless you, Weav, for maintaining the appropriate level of outrage for this long and all, but I'm starting to think I can't. I didn't build this country. I'm just a product of it. And for my entire adult life it's been getting less and less 'free' around me from all sides. Government farks us. Private industry farks us. Our employers fark us. The businesses we patronize fark us. We fark one another.

My adult experience with America?

One big, long, colossal failure punctuated by fits and starts of coincidental success.

Next 50-something to ask me why I'm "so cynical" or "negative" gets a rap to the solar plexus before I ask them why they're having such a hard time breathing and then move into the Alaskan wilderness or some shiat.
 
2012-02-27 04:01:46 PM  

heinekenftw: My house has a sunroof, so this summer, I shall spend lots of quality time on the roof, with no pants on, fapping.

Enjoy.


Yeah, but what are you going to do in response to the drones?
 
2012-02-27 04:02:11 PM  
skeet
 
Juc
2012-02-27 04:02:26 PM  

Weaver95: great...so now the state and local cops can spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.


well they do that anyway with helicopters, this is probably just a lot cheaper and cuts down on response times.

/bit of a pain having to wait for the cop helicopter to fly down from the ghetto area of town when there's a shooting in the slightly-less ghetto area of town on the opposite end.
 
2012-02-27 04:02:26 PM  
and I'm sure everything within a half mile radius of Bill Gates' place is no fly zone.
 
2012-02-27 04:03:29 PM  

whidbey: You're right, subby. It's [img1.fark.net image 54x11] that you think Faux "News" is reliable source.

Thanks for giving them their needed page clicks. They will reward you one day for your loyalty.


Whidbey, be grateful I noticed your name and recalled it from previous discussions. Otherwise, you'd be receiving obscene instructions at this time, rather than this link.Link (new window)
 
2012-02-27 04:03:59 PM  

PanicMan: thomps: from a privacy standpoint, how is this different from the helicopters and satellites that civilian and law enforcement organizations already have access to?

Some of these are small enough to hover outside of your second floor window and record you without your knowledge. Not that would be my main concern. I'd be more worried about one of these crashing into my house or falling out of the sky.


As an air traffic controller, I'd be a bit worried about having to direct traffic, especially small aircraft, around these little drones. Something that small might not even show up on radar and even still could do terrible damage to a propeller or even a jet if it gets sucked in the intake.

"Traffic twelve o'clock five miles, Lockheed drone about the size of your fist, report traffic in sight."

Good luck with that.
 
2012-02-27 04:05:23 PM  
And when one of them fails/crashes/gets shot down by a gun toting citizen, I expect many lulz to be had. I also expect someone to eventually hack one.

/Demolition derby in the sky
 
2012-02-27 04:07:51 PM  

GAT_00: Sid_6.7: Weaver95: Anyone who spends more than 10 min watching the footage from last years OWS protests understands that the cops here can be just as brutal as any third world police force and for much the same reasons as their third world counterparts.

Yeah, remember all those protesters being shot and killed? And all those people who got beaten within an inch of their lives?

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

You have a point, but it's wrapped in too much bullsh*t hyperbole.

Except it did. Even at little protests. Remember the Nashville reporter who got beaten on camera while screaming he was a reporter? Yeah, no violence at all.


Look, I don't want to seem like I'm not concerned about police brutality, but aside from isolated incidents there has been nothing to place the police on the level of the third world police, which is what Weaver said.

And yeah, I know "isolated incident" is code for "oops we got caught", but seriously, it barely happens at all. I think it's important that all citizens continue to make sure the police (and all others in positions of authority) don't overstep their bounds, but I also think claiming the police in the US are just as brutal as those in third world countries minimizes what happens in those countries while showing a stunning lack of perspective.
 
2012-02-27 04:08:27 PM  

heinekenftw: PanicMan: thomps: from a privacy standpoint, how is this different from the helicopters and satellites that civilian and law enforcement organizations already have access to?

Some of these are small enough to hover outside of your second floor window and record you without your knowledge. Not that would be my main concern. I'd be more worried about one of these crashing into my house or falling out of the sky.

As an air traffic controller, I'd be a bit worried about having to direct traffic, especially small aircraft, around these little drones. Something that small might not even show up on radar and even still could do terrible damage to a propeller or even a jet if it gets sucked in the intake.

"Traffic twelve o'clock five miles, Lockheed drone about the size of your fist, report traffic in sight."

Good luck with that.


The drones tend to be large-ish. We're not talking Ghost in the Shell, here. In order to have the proper equipment, maneuverability and speed (not to mention range) they can't even be model-sized if they're going to be useful for surveillance at all.

The military ones tend to be the length of a VW minibus at least.
 
2012-02-27 04:09:22 PM  
I suppose we all remember the article posted a few days back regarding some small town and it's tank/hummer/whatever-in-the-hell it was? I give it two years, tops, before there is a similar article about some piss-ant town and its' drone purchased via a Homeland Security grant.
 
2012-02-27 04:09:55 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: Military can put IR cameras and the weed grow houses will shine like diamonds in the sky.

Coincidentally, the police will get an "anonymous tip" those specific houses with 99% accuracy


Fairly easy to keep the heat down with proper ventilation and cooling of the lights. Also, you can duct that into the heating system of your house in the winter.... Plus new LED methods run a lot cooler I hear.

But yeah, drones *will* be abused, its what people in power do.
 
2012-02-27 04:10:01 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: Military can put IR cameras and the weed grow houses will shine like diamonds in the sky.

Coincidentally, the police will get an "anonymous tip" those specific houses with 99% accuracy


You know anybody with a fire department thermal imaging camera can drive down the street and to this now, right?
 
2012-02-27 04:10:12 PM  

GAT_00: How is forcing allowance of drone flights socialist? USSA is usually used for United Socialist States of America. Farking retarded headline is farking retarded.


Soviet States?

/not subby
 
2012-02-27 04:10:28 PM  

SkittlesAreYum: And yeah, I know "isolated incident" is code for "oops we got caught", but seriously, it barely happens at all. I think it's important that all citizens continue to make sure the police (and all others in positions of authority) don't overstep their bounds, but I also think claiming the police in the US are just as brutal as those in third world countries minimizes what happens in those countries while showing a stunning lack of perspective.


Pretty much everything you said.

When the US police start rounding up everyone at a protest, putting them in bona fide brutal prisons (not 1st world prisons, but actual nasty-ass 3rd world style blood-soaked concrete buildings), and hanging them en masse after show trials, then they'll be as bad as 3rd world police.
 
2012-02-27 04:10:54 PM  

SkittlesAreYum: GAT_00: Sid_6.7: Weaver95: Anyone who spends more than 10 min watching the footage from last years OWS protests understands that the cops here can be just as brutal as any third world police force and for much the same reasons as their third world counterparts.

Yeah, remember all those protesters being shot and killed? And all those people who got beaten within an inch of their lives?

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

You have a point, but it's wrapped in too much bullsh*t hyperbole.

Except it did. Even at little protests. Remember the Nashville reporter who got beaten on camera while screaming he was a reporter? Yeah, no violence at all.

Look, I don't want to seem like I'm not concerned about police brutality, but aside from isolated incidents there has been nothing to place the police on the level of the third world police, which is what Weaver said.

And yeah, I know "isolated incident" is code for "oops we got caught", but seriously, it barely happens at all. I think it's important that all citizens continue to make sure the police (and all others in positions of authority) don't overstep their bounds, but I also think claiming the police in the US are just as brutal as those in third world countries minimizes what happens in those countries while showing a stunning lack of perspective.


It happened pretty much continuously around the country last year during the OWS protests. Pepper spray cop, Scott Olsen... that's just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone following it at the time remembers new footage coming out every single day showing abuses of authority, violence initiated by the police, the police being used as a political tool rather than an instrument of public safety...

/Third world police is a bit of a misnomer, I guess. But this isn't how American police should act.
//Pick up that can, citizen.
 
2012-02-27 04:12:28 PM  

Psylence: But yeah, drones *will* be abused, its what people in power do.


Sure, and there will *undoubtedly* be a case that goes all the way up to SCOTUS with regards to what exact circumstances require a warrant for them, just like the GPS recent tracking case.

But we're not talking legions of finger-sized drones flying around, one assigned to every individual in a town, resulting in Agent Smith showing up to take you away if you use the wrong newspeak.
 
2012-02-27 04:12:51 PM  

Knara: SkittlesAreYum: And yeah, I know "isolated incident" is code for "oops we got caught", but seriously, it barely happens at all. I think it's important that all citizens continue to make sure the police (and all others in positions of authority) don't overstep their bounds, but I also think claiming the police in the US are just as brutal as those in third world countries minimizes what happens in those countries while showing a stunning lack of perspective.

Pretty much everything you said.

When the US police start rounding up everyone at a protest, putting them in bona fide brutal prisons (not 1st world prisons, but actual nasty-ass 3rd world style blood-soaked concrete buildings), and hanging them en masse after show trials, then they'll be as bad as 3rd world police.


We're not allowed to complain until that happens?
 
2012-02-27 04:13:13 PM  
The first order of business will be to look for pot plants.

The second order of business will be for the code enforcement people to look for rogue building additions and sheds.
 
2012-02-27 04:13:28 PM  

GAT_00: How is forcing allowance of drone flights socialist? USSA is usually used for United Socialist States of America. Farking retarded headline is farking retarded.


No True Communist state would have had the KGB and gulags.
 
2012-02-27 04:13:51 PM  
Robert Sheckley is a prophet?
 
2012-02-27 04:15:00 PM  

qorkfiend: We're not allowed to complain until that happens?


Anyone sane agrees police need to strive to be better.

Those sane people also don't use reckless hyperbole in order to get people to listen to them.

You are not included in that group, apparently.
 
2012-02-27 04:15:05 PM  

Knara: heinekenftw: PanicMan: thomps: from a privacy standpoint, how is this different from the helicopters and satellites that civilian and law enforcement organizations already have access to?

Some of these are small enough to hover outside of your second floor window and record you without your knowledge. Not that would be my main concern. I'd be more worried about one of these crashing into my house or falling out of the sky.

As an air traffic controller, I'd be a bit worried about having to direct traffic, especially small aircraft, around these little drones. Something that small might not even show up on radar and even still could do terrible damage to a propeller or even a jet if it gets sucked in the intake.

"Traffic twelve o'clock five miles, Lockheed drone about the size of your fist, report traffic in sight."

Good luck with that.

The drones tend to be large-ish. We're not talking Ghost in the Shell, here. In order to have the proper equipment, maneuverability and speed (not to mention range) they can't even be model-sized if they're going to be useful for surveillance at all.

The military ones tend to be the length of a VW minibus at least.


Georgia Tech recently received a grant to fund developing smaller, more efficient drones with new capabilities. Sorry, I can't find a link. If you know anyone who is an alumni of GT, there's an article on the topic in the most recent GT alumni magazine.
 
2012-02-27 04:15:08 PM  

JustGetItRight: Guidette Frankentits: Military can put IR cameras and the weed grow houses will shine like diamonds in the sky.

Coincidentally, the police will get an "anonymous tip" those specific houses with 99% accuracy

You know anybody with a fire department thermal imaging camera can drive down the street and to this now, right?


Not to mention you'd be better off pulling power usage information versus heat signature information. No need to waste resource actually going to the grow house. Just request spreadsheets from the local power company, look for places with spikes of usage during typical down-hours and boom. You've got a pretty good idea of who's got a shiatload of grow-lights up.

Or... you know who's getting their power boosted by someone with a bunch of grow lights. Either way, you're on your way to warrant-ville with that menial effort. Fark, you can have a computer program do the actual work for you too, if you're a lazy shiat.
 
2012-02-27 04:15:16 PM  
bin Laden is still in Hell laughing his ass off.
 
2012-02-27 04:16:35 PM  

Weaver95: great...so now the state and local cops can spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.


Nah. Iranian hackers have control.
 
2012-02-27 04:17:11 PM  

dumbobruni: speaking of drones: i love the Roomba, but I am waiting for the day that it turns on my family.

/it already terrorizes the dog
//is my dad next?


it will come for his medicine

does he have robot insurance?
 
2012-02-27 04:18:02 PM  
walkoffwin55.files.wordpress.com

Pull!

 
2012-02-27 04:19:21 PM  

Lunaville: Georgia Tech recently received a grant to fund developing smaller, more efficient drones with new capabilities. Sorry, I can't find a link. If you know anyone who is an alumni of GT, there's an article on the topic in the most recent GT alumni magazine.


I've got no doubt that these things will get smaller and more efficient, but there's definite limits to size reduction unless you want to make a model that's specific for each individual function, not to mention the simple problems of energy / fuel storage to run that equipment.
 
2012-02-27 04:19:32 PM  

qorkfiend: Knara: SkittlesAreYum: And yeah, I know "isolated incident" is code for "oops we got caught", but seriously, it barely happens at all. I think it's important that all citizens continue to make sure the police (and all others in positions of authority) don't overstep their bounds, but I also think claiming the police in the US are just as brutal as those in third world countries minimizes what happens in those countries while showing a stunning lack of perspective.

Pretty much everything you said.

When the US police start rounding up everyone at a protest, putting them in bona fide brutal prisons (not 1st world prisons, but actual nasty-ass 3rd world style blood-soaked concrete buildings), and hanging them en masse after show trials, then they'll be as bad as 3rd world police.

We're not allowed to complain until that happens?


And when it does we'll be told to shut up, it's not that bad, at least they're not Serbian rape camps...
 
2012-02-27 04:19:40 PM  

Knara: qorkfiend: We're not allowed to complain until that happens?

Anyone sane agrees police need to strive to be better.

Those sane people also don't use reckless hyperbole in order to get people to listen to them.

You are not included in that group, apparently.


Why would the police strive to be better if the citizens aren't complaining about their tactics? Silence is tacit agreement.
 
2012-02-27 04:20:06 PM  

TheGreatGazoo:

The second order of business will be for the code enforcement people to look for rogue building additions and sheds.


They don't need drones for that. All they need is Google Maps.
 
2012-02-27 04:20:23 PM  

Knara: qorkfiend: We're not allowed to complain until that happens?

Anyone sane agrees police need to strive to be better.

Those sane people also don't use reckless hyperbole in order to get people to listen to them.

You are not included in that group, apparently.


A Dark Evil Omen: And when it does we'll be told to shut up, it's not that bad, at least they're not Serbian rape camps...


*swish*
 
2012-02-27 04:21:02 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Home anti-drone defense system
[www.fas.org image 640x206]
/s hot gun


What does your shot pattern look like after reaching an altitude of 20,000 feet?
 
2012-02-27 04:21:25 PM  

Backwards Cornfield Races: I'll have an election bot flying down my street telling me to vote or else I'll have to report to a "happy camp"


Warned you

www.ipass.net
 
2012-02-27 04:23:44 PM  
HERF weaponry. Learn how to make it.
 
2012-02-27 04:25:21 PM  

qorkfiend: Why would the police strive to be better if the citizens aren't complaining about their tactics? Silence is tacit agreement.


You can complaint, protest, legislate, sue, etc to your heart's content. I would probably support your efforts.

It does nothing for your case if you use inaccurate hyperbole that makes you look like a raving lunatic while doing it.
 
2012-02-27 04:25:24 PM  

heinekenftw: As an air traffic controller, I'd be a bit worried about having to direct traffic, especially small aircraft, around these little drones. Something that small might not even show up on radar and even still could do terrible damage to a propeller or even a jet if it gets sucked in the intake.


Good point. You 'd have to have very strict and properly enforced and trained airspace.

Knara: The military ones tend to be the length of a VW minibus at least.


There's so many different kinds it's ridiculous. Everything from a few inches across to 100+ feet wingspan. A lot are glorified model airplanes, can be very hard to see.
 
2012-02-27 04:28:39 PM  

PanicMan: There's so many different kinds it's ridiculous. Everything from a few inches across to 100+ feet wingspan. A lot are glorified model airplanes, can be very hard to see.


Yes, but as you go down in size, functionality drops dramatically.
 
2012-02-27 04:29:14 PM  
It'll be fun trying to take those farkers down if they get too low.
 
2012-02-27 04:32:28 PM  

Knara: qorkfiend: Why would the police strive to be better if the citizens aren't complaining about their tactics? Silence is tacit agreement.

You can complaint, protest, legislate, sue, etc to your heart's content. I would probably support your efforts.

It does nothing for your case if you use inaccurate hyperbole that makes you look like a raving lunatic while doing it.


You should check out the hyperbole thread, it's got a billion examples of people looking absolutely freaking batshiat balls-out plunger-in-the-ass syphilitic-Caligula insane. It's literally an insane asylum.
 
2012-02-27 04:35:23 PM  
Actually, this is a really good thing for scientific research. There is a lot of stuff that could be done with UASs that would be either cheaper than manned aircraft or allow you to get in more dangerous places (low altitude in hurricanes, etc.)
 
2012-02-27 04:37:12 PM  

palelizard: Knara: qorkfiend: Why would the police strive to be better if the citizens aren't complaining about their tactics? Silence is tacit agreement.

You can complaint, protest, legislate, sue, etc to your heart's content. I would probably support your efforts.

It does nothing for your case if you use inaccurate hyperbole that makes you look like a raving lunatic while doing it.

You should check out the hyperbole thread, it's got a billion examples of people looking absolutely freaking batshiat balls-out plunger-in-the-ass syphilitic-Caligula insane. It's literally an insane asylum.


Literally an insane asylum. I like it.
 
2012-02-27 04:38:51 PM  

Knara: PanicMan: There's so many different kinds it's ridiculous. Everything from a few inches across to 100+ feet wingspan. A lot are glorified model airplanes, can be very hard to see.

Yes, but as you go down in size, functionality drops dramatically.


TFA frankly sucks for details, but talks about allowing commercial use of small drones. That makes me very nervous.
 
2012-02-27 04:40:35 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Home anti-drone defense system
[www.fas.org image 640x206]
/s hot gun

What does your shot pattern look like after reaching an altitude of 20,000 feet?


Well, you do need to use the right club. The shotgun is for low-altitude chip shots.
For that range, we recommend the driver
images.wikia.com
 
2012-02-27 04:41:48 PM  
farm6.static.flickr.com
 
2012-02-27 04:42:32 PM  
Here's part of what's going on, and it isn't as sinister as it might appear.

The US military (mainly the Air National Guard) has a tentative proposal to swap out some existing flying units (aging fighter wings, mostly) with drone units. This has been all over the news lately in ANG towns. The reason is that drones can accomplish many of the same ground-attack missions for far less taxpayer money. But part of that deal means that drones will be flown (routine training/maintenance flights) in civilian airspace, just like fighters are today. It's a recent battle, but it adds to some ongoing stuff from the Army's "transformation" in the last decade (which added intelligence drones at the brigade level, but most weren't fielded in the US). The FAA, for a variety of reasons (legit and otherwise), has been very resistant to the military on allowing drones to operate near existing airports.

That fight has been going on for about a decade now. Since then, drones have become even cheaper and more versatile, and have proven their worth in a variety of operations. So more organizations (larger metro law enforcement agencies, federal agencies, etc) also want to start flying them instead of the aging and VERY expensive helicopters they've already been using. And the FAA seems further outdated by their continued resistance to the growing requests, especially when taxpayers see how much money could be saved by the use of drones.
 
2012-02-27 04:42:44 PM  

violentsalvation: The police are now a military fighting force. It is ridiculous.

[i798.photobucket.com image 396x223]

I bet they rig that thing to drop tear gas.


or

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-27 04:43:03 PM  
In other news I've renamed my guest WIFI access point from FBI_SURVEILLANCE_DRONE to SONOMA_COUNTY_SHERIFF_SURVEILLANCE_DRONE. Lets see if anyone notices...
 
2012-02-27 04:43:46 PM  

PanicMan: TFA frankly sucks for details, but talks about allowing commercial use of small drones. That makes me very nervous.


I can't get worked up over it, quite frankly. Any sane reading of existing laws will apply to drones as well. Sure there will be the inevitable test case, but, for me at least, it's similar to people getting worked up because binoculars are less expensive than ever.
 
2012-02-27 04:44:00 PM  
anarchy will break out in kings free park once someone figures out how to take down all the copseyes
 
2012-02-27 04:45:15 PM  

dumbobruni: speaking of drones: i love the Roomba, but I am waiting for the day that it turns on my family.

/it already terrorizes the dog
//is my dad next?


The Cats have already hacked the Roomba. How else can you explain all the cats riding roomba videos out there?

I, for one, welcome our cybernetic feline overlords.
 
2012-02-27 04:45:30 PM  

Knara: Psylence: But yeah, drones *will* be abused, its what people in power do.

Sure, and there will *undoubtedly* be a case that goes all the way up to SCOTUS with regards to what exact circumstances require a warrant for them, just like the GPS recent tracking case.

But we're not talking legions of finger-sized drones flying around, one assigned to every individual in a town, resulting in Agent Smith showing up to take you away if you use the wrong newspeak.


That's a little short-sighted to think drones won't get smaller, cheaper, and more numerous as technology and economies of scale progress. If you allow them to hover over you now imagine what it will be like 20 years down the road. Drones are a complete assvation of privacy.
 
2012-02-27 04:45:35 PM  

badLogic: In other news I've renamed my guest WIFI access point from FBI_SURVEILLANCE_DRONE to SONOMA_COUNTY_SHERIFF_SURVEILLANCE_DRONE. Lets see if anyone notices...


Haha. I've been meaning to change my SSID to something "FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VEHICLE_7A" for years now, but never remember about it except in threads like this.
 
2012-02-27 04:47:07 PM  

Lunaville: whidbey: You're right, subby. It's [img1.fark.net image 54x11] that you think Faux "News" is reliable source.

Thanks for giving them their needed page clicks. They will reward you one day for your loyalty.

Whidbey, be grateful I noticed your name and recalled it from previous discussions. Otherwise, you'd be receiving obscene instructions at this time, rather than this link.Link (new window)


Thank you.

Now that I've read TFA, I gotta play Devil's Advocate a bit by asking:

Do you really feel that law enforcement should only have 19th and 20th century technology at their disposal?
 
2012-02-27 04:47:16 PM  

Weaver95: Aarontology: And yet, for some reason, we pretend we're above societies that create things like secret police and the Stasi.

no, we actually get hostile when told that local cop shops are becoming more military and law enforcement in general is becoming more invasive and authoritarian. THEN we pretend that we're above those other societies, because we KNOW that it can't happen here. CNN and Fox News tell us this every day.

Anyone who spends more than 10 min watching the footage from last years OWS protests understands that the cops here can be just as brutal as any third world police force and for much the same reasons as their third world counterparts.


Yeah, who'd have thought that telling the police they've been engaged in a WAR for the last thirty years would lead to them starting to behave like a military?
/I mean besides any behavioral psychologist who was even half awake for their freshman classes...
 
2012-02-27 04:47:17 PM  

jjwars1: Knara: Psylence: But yeah, drones *will* be abused, its what people in power do.

Sure, and there will *undoubtedly* be a case that goes all the way up to SCOTUS with regards to what exact circumstances require a warrant for them, just like the GPS recent tracking case.

But we're not talking legions of finger-sized drones flying around, one assigned to every individual in a town, resulting in Agent Smith showing up to take you away if you use the wrong newspeak.

That's a little short-sighted to think drones won't get smaller, cheaper, and more numerous as technology and economies of scale progress. If you allow them to hover over you now imagine what it will be like 20 years down the road. Drones are a complete assvation of privacy.



www.rotory.com\

A TYRANT IN ACTION!
 
2012-02-27 04:47:51 PM  
If you didn't like Bush you must HATE Obama.
 
2012-02-27 04:48:02 PM  

Knara: badLogic: In other news I've renamed my guest WIFI access point from FBI_SURVEILLANCE_DRONE to SONOMA_COUNTY_SHERIFF_SURVEILLANCE_DRONE. Lets see if anyone notices...

Haha. I've been meaning to change my SSID to something "FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VEHICLE_7A" for years now, but never remember about it except in threads like this.


Set my parents to "FBI SAFE-HOUSE 34 b"...
 
2012-02-27 04:48:48 PM  

badLogic: dumbobruni: speaking of drones: i love the Roomba, but I am waiting for the day that it turns on my family.

/it already terrorizes the dog
//is my dad next?

The Cats have already hacked the Roomba. How else can you explain all the cats riding roomba videos out there?

I, for one, welcome our cybernetic feline overlords.


Early primitive Daleks
 
2012-02-27 04:49:42 PM  

tgregory: If you didn't like Bush you must HATE Obama.


Because both are exactly the same, have the same goals and are politically indistinguishable from each other.

Let me guess: RON PAUL?
 
2012-02-27 04:50:20 PM  

whidbey: tgregory: If you didn't like Bush you must HATE Obama.

Because both are exactly the same, have the same goals and are politically indistinguishable from each other.

Let me guess: RON PAUL?


RU PAUL

 
2012-02-27 04:50:21 PM  

jjwars1: That's a little short-sighted to think drones won't get smaller, cheaper, and more numerous as technology and economies of scale progress. If you allow them to hover over you now imagine what it will be like 20 years down the road. Drones are a complete assvation of privacy.


We're dealing with pretty rigid physical restraints, here. Just think about it for a second. How much electrical power do you think it takes to run a transmitter (with any sort of useful range), 1 or 2 motors for engines (again, with anything resembling a useful range), the circuitry and electronics for any surveillance gear. Now think about the alternatives available for generating that electricity. You've got basically 3 options: 1) liquid fuel, 2) batteries, and 3) solar power.

1) Is heavy. 2) is even heavier. 3) limits your operational conditions quite a bit.

Sure, you can combine 1) and 3) or 2) and 3), but then it's even heavier, requiring even more fuel.
 
2012-02-27 04:51:17 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: whidbey: tgregory: If you didn't like Bush you must HATE Obama.

Because both are exactly the same, have the same goals and are politically indistinguishable from each other.

Let me guess: RON PAUL?

RU PAUL


^^GRACE JONES^^
 
2012-02-27 04:52:07 PM  

badhatharry: You know what happens next. The troops show up. This is not tinfoil hat bullshiat. This will happen to keep us safe. Link (new window)


And they'll get it, too. Not nearly enough Americans give a shiat what's happening to this country. The ones who do care don't seem to be very effective getting things changed.

You have no rights. You haven't for a long time.
 
2012-02-27 04:53:49 PM  

Knara: PanicMan: TFA frankly sucks for details, but talks about allowing commercial use of small drones. That makes me very nervous.

I can't get worked up over it, quite frankly. Any sane reading of existing laws will apply to drones as well. Sure there will be the inevitable test case, but, for me at least, it's similar to people getting worked up because binoculars are less expensive than ever.


Exactly. Using binoculars to spy on my neighbor is perfectly OK, and in no way invades her privacy at all. Nope...not one bit.
 
2012-02-27 04:54:18 PM  

phenn: You have no rights. You haven't for a long time.


I'll bet you've got quite the view from up there on that cross. Especially on one of these rare clear days.
 
2012-02-27 04:54:23 PM  

jjwars1: Knara: PanicMan: TFA frankly sucks for details, but talks about allowing commercial use of small drones. That makes me very nervous.

I can't get worked up over it, quite frankly. Any sane reading of existing laws will apply to drones as well. Sure there will be the inevitable test case, but, for me at least, it's similar to people getting worked up because binoculars are less expensive than ever.

Exactly. Using binoculars to spy on my neighbor is perfectly OK, and in no way invades her privacy at all. Nope...not one bit.


It's also illegal.
 
2012-02-27 04:56:36 PM  

loonatic112358: badLogic: dumbobruni: speaking of drones: i love the Roomba, but I am waiting for the day that it turns on my family.

/it already terrorizes the dog
//is my dad next?

The Cats have already hacked the Roomba. How else can you explain all the cats riding roomba videos out there?

I, for one, welcome our cybernetic feline overlords.

Early primitive Daleks


Good move that. As there are fewer emotions to purge and they already have the appropriate level of disdain for humans, except when there is food involved.
 
2012-02-27 04:58:12 PM  

Knara: The drones tend to be large-ish. We're not talking Ghost in the Shell, here. In order to have the proper equipment, maneuverability and speed (not to mention range) they can't even be model-sized if they're going to be useful for surveillance at all.

The military ones tend to be the length of a VW minibus at least.


That was true a decade ago, not so much today. The start of the art is advancing at a blistering pace. Local authorities will be deploying a swarm of these in your neighborhood before you know it. They can and will be model-sized, and will be so cheap and ubiquitous as to be disposable.
 
2012-02-27 04:58:57 PM  

whidbey: phenn: You have no rights. You haven't for a long time.

I'll bet you've got quite the view from up there on that cross. Especially on one of these rare clear days.


So, you're fine with what's going on?

Seriously?
 
2012-02-27 05:01:22 PM  

phenn: whidbey: phenn: You have no rights. You haven't for a long time.

I'll bet you've got quite the view from up there on that cross. Especially on one of these rare clear days.

So, you're fine with what's going on?


THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES! EITHER YOU SEE THE WORLD AS HAVING ALREADY ENDED OR YOU THINK NOTHING IS WRONG ANYWHERE!
 
2012-02-27 05:01:44 PM  

violentsalvation: The police are now a military fighting force.


So are criminals.
 
2012-02-27 05:02:27 PM  

apeiron242: So are criminals.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-02-27 05:03:32 PM  

phenn: whidbey: phenn: You have no rights. You haven't for a long time.

I'll bet you've got quite the view from up there on that cross. Especially on one of these rare clear days.

So, you're fine with what's going on?

Seriously?


Dude, your tinfoil hat. It's BEEPING.
 
2012-02-27 05:04:12 PM  
... Voice activated drones?
Yeah, that's right.
Wow, that's hard to believe.
He didn't believe either, but when he said "voice activated drones my ass", well he said it too loud.
 
2012-02-27 05:04:30 PM  

whidbey: phenn: whidbey: phenn: You have no rights. You haven't for a long time.

I'll bet you've got quite the view from up there on that cross. Especially on one of these rare clear days.

So, you're fine with what's going on?

Seriously?

Dude, your tinfoil hat. It's BEEPING.


You're a complete idiot. But then, you've always been a complete idiot.
 
2012-02-27 05:05:24 PM  

sabreWulf07: That was true a decade ago, not so much today. The start of the art is advancing at a blistering pace. Local authorities will be deploying a swarm of these in your neighborhood before you know it. They can and will be model-sized, and will be so cheap and ubiquitous as to be disposable.


See my posts above. Anything that small will have very limited range, both in terms of flight duration/height and in terms of non-line-of-sight operation and, as a result, vastly reduced overall functionality as a surveillance device.
 
2012-02-27 05:06:11 PM  

jjwars1: Exactly. Using binoculars to spy on my neighbor is perfectly OK, and in no way invades her privacy at all. Nope...not one bit.


Approves

www.inpapasbasement.com
 
2012-02-27 05:06:13 PM  

Knara: jjwars1: Knara: PanicMan: TFA frankly sucks for details, but talks about allowing commercial use of small drones. That makes me very nervous.

I can't get worked up over it, quite frankly. Any sane reading of existing laws will apply to drones as well. Sure there will be the inevitable test case, but, for me at least, it's similar to people getting worked up because binoculars are less expensive than ever.

Exactly. Using binoculars to spy on my neighbor is perfectly OK, and in no way invades her privacy at all. Nope...not one bit.

It's also illegal.


Yes, it is. Drones are already in use though, and it isn't illegal. You should be concerned. Helicopters, satellites, etc can hover over you if they want in order to spy yet it isn't illegal.
 
2012-02-27 05:06:49 PM  

phenn: whidbey: phenn: whidbey: phenn: You have no rights. You haven't for a long time.

I'll bet you've got quite the view from up there on that cross. Especially on one of these rare clear days.

So, you're fine with what's going on?

Seriously?

Dude, your tinfoil hat. It's BEEPING.

You're a complete idiot. But then, you've always been a complete idiot.


Because making completely ridiculous statements like "You have no rights. You haven't for a long time" is the hallmark of a fracking genius.

Dude, grow up.
 
2012-02-27 05:07:41 PM  

TsukasaK: Merkin Ball:
...

Doesn't the "no expectation of privacy in public" thing still apply though? If the cops want to see me walking down the street in broad daylight where everyone else can see me.. I guess they're welcome to do that. This doesn't allow anything that wasn't already allowed before.


In public, yes, I agree. But private? Where would you draw the line?

Knara: Merkin Ball:
...

You seem to be under the impression that these drones are inexpective and easy to operate. And usable without a warrant. You can't track people now without one, so why do you believe that drone tracking would be any different?


I completely believe these are inexpensive (I think that is what you meant) and easy to operate. Usable without a warrant? Yes, 100% usable without a warrant. They would only need a warrant if they intended to use their data against you.

Personally, I am not too concerned about them watching me; my occasional puffs are my only concerns. I am a highly paranoid puffer, though...

Seriously though, when do you stop Big Brother and Little Brother? What would be your breaking point? I cannot fathom to understand how people are so willing to trade their freedom and privacy for the thinnest of security blankets.
 
2012-02-27 05:09:55 PM  

jjwars1: Knara: jjwars1: Knara: PanicMan: TFA frankly sucks for details, but talks about allowing commercial use of small drones. That makes me very nervous.

I can't get worked up over it, quite frankly. Any sane reading of existing laws will apply to drones as well. Sure there will be the inevitable test case, but, for me at least, it's similar to people getting worked up because binoculars are less expensive than ever.

Exactly. Using binoculars to spy on my neighbor is perfectly OK, and in no way invades her privacy at all. Nope...not one bit.

It's also illegal.

Yes, it is. Drones are already in use though, and it isn't illegal. You should be concerned. Helicopters, satellites, etc can hover over you if they want in order to spy yet it isn't illegal.


Because a law enforcement sting operation is the exact same thing as some pervert looking in on his neighbor's window.

I love my Fark education.
 
2012-02-27 05:10:21 PM  

jjwars1: Helicopters, satellites, etc can hover over you if they want in order to spy yet it isn't illegal.


So why are we suddenly concerned about drones, if everything that the drones can do can be done already?
 
2012-02-27 05:11:18 PM  

Knara: sabreWulf07: That was true a decade ago, not so much today. The start of the art is advancing at a blistering pace. Local authorities will be deploying a swarm of these in your neighborhood before you know it. They can and will be model-sized, and will be so cheap and ubiquitous as to be disposable.

See my posts above. Anything that small will have very limited range, both in terms of flight duration/height and in terms of non-line-of-sight operation and, as a result, vastly reduced overall functionality as a surveillance device.


I fail to see the problem. I'll have a box of these on a street light pole every mile in the jurisdiction that will spit out a dozen on command. What if they were self-deploying, continuously flitting about and returning to the nearest "police box" to recharge? What if the cost of deploying 20,000 of these to your city was cheaper than hiring 2 police officers for a year?
 
2012-02-27 05:12:02 PM  
I don't have a problem with this. "Allow use of civilian airspace" does not immediately amount to "We want to spy on our own citizens." It might be that the goal is to do that, but it could also be that it'd be nice to have a lot more space to play with for training, especially in an environment that might more closely resemble some current or future warzone.

I get that being post-PATRIOT and -Gitmo sort of gives us all a heightened sensitivity to paranoia-inducing government activity, but at some point y'all are going to have to resign yourselves to the fact that the sky's still up there, Chicken Little.
 
2012-02-27 05:12:20 PM  

whidbey: phenn: whidbey: phenn: whidbey: phenn: You have no rights. You haven't for a long time.

I'll bet you've got quite the view from up there on that cross. Especially on one of these rare clear days.

So, you're fine with what's going on?

Seriously?

Dude, your tinfoil hat. It's BEEPING.

You're a complete idiot. But then, you've always been a complete idiot.

Because making completely ridiculous statements like "You have no rights. You haven't for a long time" is the hallmark of a fracking genius.

Dude, grow up.


At the same time you should probably familiarize yourself with the Patriot Act and the NDAA 2012. The rights we think we have don't really exist in the context of those laws. Saying we have no rights is an exaggeration, but effectively communicates the vast erosion of our rights. If you know about these laws already you should realize saying we have no rights is simply a style of communication and not meant to be taken extremely literal.
 
2012-02-27 05:13:13 PM  
On the one hand, I can see several legit uses for this from a police/domestic standpoint, such as long border patrols, search/rescue, wild fire hunting/tracking, disaster surveying, etc.

I also see how this could be abused for unwarranted surveillance and privacy violations.

Time will tell I suppose.
 
2012-02-27 05:14:07 PM  
I'm thinking of that prank where some schoolboys in a British-English speaking country used chalk to outline a large drawing of male genitalia so that it coul dbe picked up on satellite. I suspect this approach could be great fun for everyone.
 
2012-02-27 05:14:15 PM  
HOMELAND SECURITY DRONE
www.wtop.com
IS WATCHING YOU MASTURBATE
 
2012-02-27 05:14:19 PM  
Didn't they just have a ruling in regards to a k9 that reacted to the scent of drugs on a house?


Would the cameras have to be turned off until the house that they got the warrant for was the only thing in the view screen?
 
2012-02-27 05:14:54 PM  

Merkin Ball: TsukasaK: Merkin Ball:
Seriously though, when do you stop Big Brother and Little Brother? What would be your breaking point? I cannot fathom to understand how people are so willing to trade their freedom and privacy for the thinnest of security blankets.


This technology is coming and there is nothing that will stop it. The question we should really be debating is, Should we be limiting who has access to these tools?
The correct answer is NO. As any attempts to limit the availability of this and other surveillance tech means only the rich, powerful or politically connected will have access to it. Which is the worst possible outcome. With ubiquitous access the how "Who watches the watchers?" scenario can be avoided. See David Brin's The Transparent Society for why only radical transparency will give us a society worth living in.
 
2012-02-27 05:15:04 PM  

jjwars1: whidbey: phenn: whidbey: phenn: whidbey: phenn: You have no rights. You haven't for a long time.

I'll bet you've got quite the view from up there on that cross. Especially on one of these rare clear days.

So, you're fine with what's going on?

Seriously?

Dude, your tinfoil hat. It's BEEPING.

You're a complete idiot. But then, you've always been a complete idiot.

Because making completely ridiculous statements like "You have no rights. You haven't for a long time" is the hallmark of a fracking genius.

Dude, grow up.

At the same time you should probably familiarize yourself with the Patriot Act and the NDAA 2012. The rights we think we have don't really exist in the context of those laws. Saying we have no rights is an exaggeration, but effectively communicates the vast erosion of our rights. If you know about these laws already you should realize saying we have no rights is simply a style of communication and not meant to be taken extremely literal.


I understand your point. Still, the sentiment is more than just a little paranoid.
 
2012-02-27 05:15:53 PM  

ib_thinkin: I don't have a problem with this. "Allow use of civilian airspace" does not immediately amount to "We want to spy on our own citizens." It might be that the goal is to do that, but it could also be that it'd be nice to have a lot more space to play with for training, especially in an environment that might more closely resemble some current or future warzone.

I get that being post-PATRIOT and -Gitmo sort of gives us all a heightened sensitivity to paranoia-inducing government activity, but at some point y'all are going to have to resign yourselves to the fact that the sky's still up there, Chicken Little.


People also have to remember that FAA jurisdiction typically does not go down to ground level. Flying small remotely controlled aircraft below the jusrisdiction level is already legal. Hobbyists do it all the time. The level of panic in this thread just isn't justified by the action in question.
 
2012-02-27 05:17:02 PM  

Knara: The military ones tend to be the length of a VW minibus at least.


AeroVironment RQ-11 Raven - up to 15,000 feet, 1.3 meters by 1 meter
 
2012-02-27 05:17:30 PM  

BeesNuts: I'm running low on outrage fuel. I was farking 14 on 9/11/2001. I was a stupid farking high school freshman who had no idea what the fark was going on around me. And stupid farking high school freshman iteration of me was able to see the escalation of authoritarianism. God Bless you, Weav, for maintaining the appropriate level of outrage for this long and all, but I'm starting to think I can't. I didn't build this country. I'm just a product of it. And for my entire adult life it's been getting less and less 'free' around me from all sides. Government farks us. Private industry farks us. Our employers fark us. The businesses we patronize fark us. We fark one another.

My adult experience with America?

One big, long, colossal failure punctuated by fits and starts of coincidental success.

Next 50-something to ask me why I'm "so cynical" or "negative" gets a rap to the solar plexus before I ask them why they're having such a hard time breathing and then move into the Alaskan wilderness or some shiat.


Yeah -- i remember being 16 and thinking "10 years from now shiat is going to be waaay different."
-- Sounds like your not cynical or negative -- you sir are bitter. Bitter is a bad way to be.

You just need to be MORE cynical -- Your cynical and negative about authoritarianism and how communities are breaking down. Now you need to be cynical about the ability of the government or corporations to actually pull all the evil conspiracies off.

As worried as i am about how evil some people are, I'm comforted by how many more people are catastrophically stupid.
 
2012-02-27 05:19:17 PM  

qorkfiend: jjwars1: Helicopters, satellites, etc can hover over you if they want in order to spy yet it isn't illegal.

So why are we suddenly concerned about drones, if everything that the drones can do can be done already?


Choppers and satellites are expensive, so the invasion of privacy is very minimal. You won't find a satellite dedicated to spying on you in your backyard or a helicopter unless you're really important to someone. Drone technology is quickly becoming smaller and cheaper so more agencies can gain access to them. It would be like having LEO hover over you in a helicopter while you're in your back yard or speeding down a deserted road all the time.
 
2012-02-27 05:19:47 PM  
Hey, look, they're turning it on us now. Just like thousands of people said they would. fark this place.
 
2012-02-27 05:20:36 PM  

whidbey: I understand your point. Still, the sentiment is more than just a little paranoid.


The legitimate uses of these drones wouldn't be a problem IMO. But the fact you always hear about police abusing their positions is the real thing to worry about. It's like giving a monkey a gun.
 
2012-02-27 05:20:43 PM  

Dictatorial_Flair: Hey, look, they're turning it on us now. Just like thousands of people said they would. fark this place.


The same could be said of all technology...
 
2012-02-27 05:22:06 PM  

Headso: whidbey: I understand your point. Still, the sentiment is more than just a little paranoid.

The legitimate uses of these drones wouldn't be a problem IMO. But the fact you always hear about police abusing their positions is the real thing to worry about. It's like giving a monkey a gun.


I thought cops were usually called "pigs" not "monkeys".
 
2012-02-27 05:23:03 PM  

Giltric: Didn't they just have a ruling in regards to a k9 that reacted to the scent of drugs on a house?


Not aware of it off the top of my head, but if the ruling was that, "It's not a search under the Fourth Amendment," that's consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent: because the dog can only give you an up-or-down about the presence of illegal substances, it's not a search. Your Fourth Amendment protects your legal, but private, activities. Illegal activity is not protected by the Constitution.
 
2012-02-27 05:24:00 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The level of panic in this thread just isn't justified by the action in question.


I usually find that to be the case. And I'm really tired of being called a stormtrooper.
 
2012-02-27 05:25:57 PM  
So now they'll be able to fly unmanned drones to spy over you rather than manned aircraft. Not seeing the outrage here, or else it seems misplaced.
 
2012-02-27 05:26:09 PM  

ib_thinkin: Giltric: Didn't they just have a ruling in regards to a k9 that reacted to the scent of drugs on a house?

Not aware of it off the top of my head, but if the ruling was that, "It's not a search under the Fourth Amendment," that's consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent: because the dog can only give you an up-or-down about the presence of illegal substances, it's not a search. Your Fourth Amendment protects your legal, but private, activities. Illegal activity is not protected by the Constitution.


Yeah, but the government is prohibited from going around and poking into private activities looking for illegal things; they have to have some evidence that something illegal is happening or about to happen.
 
2012-02-27 05:27:22 PM  

Headso: whidbey: I understand your point. Still, the sentiment is more than just a little paranoid.

The legitimate uses of these drones wouldn't be a problem IMO. But the fact you always hear about police abusing their positions is the real thing to worry about. It's like giving a monkey a gun.


Your blanket insult to the overwhelmingly law-abiding law enforcement community aside, it sounds to me like you want these guys to protect and serve:

farm4.staticflickr.com

No technology after 1925 allowed. Not yours.
 
2012-02-27 05:28:22 PM  

ib_thinkin: Philip Francis Queeg: The level of panic in this thread just isn't justified by the action in question.

I usually find that to be the case. And I'm really tired of being called a stormtrooper.


the same people that rationalize this are the ones who got paranoid about the government knowing what library books you took out.
 
2012-02-27 05:30:05 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: ib_thinkin: Philip Francis Queeg: The level of panic in this thread just isn't justified by the action in question.

I usually find that to be the case. And I'm really tired of being called a stormtrooper.

the same people that rationalize this are the ones who got paranoid about the government knowing what library books you took out.


"This" does not give the Police any amount of additional investigatory power. None. Zero.
 
2012-02-27 05:30:08 PM  

qorkfiend: they have to have some evidence that something illegal is happening or about to happen.


I'm really not familiar with the case. Why did they have the drug-sniffing dog near the house in the first place?
 
2012-02-27 05:30:37 PM  
www.weirdpalace.com
If you don't have anything to hide, why should you worry?
 
2012-02-27 05:30:52 PM  
The thing about the drones is, they always make me think of Bill Hicks' words regarding smart bombs during the Iraq war (I)

"Couldn't we use that same technology to shoot food at hungry people? -
Hey! That guy down there could use a banana!
SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Smart fruit."

Couldn't we use this same drone technology to pinpoint problem parts of our society, and develop real-time working models to help fight poverty, violence and social breakdown? Yes, that involves fighting crime, but it also involves seeing how people live day-to-day and combating the problems they have in their daily lives.
We won't, but we probably could.
 
2012-02-27 05:31:17 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: the same people that rationalize this are the ones who got paranoid about the government knowing what library books you took out.


Because one allows the government access to information with your name on it and the other allows government access to fly airplanes and drones throughout the country?
 
2012-02-27 05:31:52 PM  

Dahnkster: [www.weirdpalace.com image 570x428]
If you don't have anything to hide, why should you worry?


Brian Peppers?
 
2012-02-27 05:32:45 PM  

whidbey: Headso: whidbey: I understand your point. Still, the sentiment is more than just a little paranoid.

The legitimate uses of these drones wouldn't be a problem IMO. But the fact you always hear about police abusing their positions is the real thing to worry about. It's like giving a monkey a gun.

Your blanket insult to the overwhelmingly law-abiding law enforcement community aside, it sounds to me like you want these guys to protect and serve:

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 400x300]

No technology after 1925 allowed. Not yours.


well, at the end of the day they'd probably end up solving the same number of crimes.
 
2012-02-27 05:33:28 PM  

ib_thinkin: qorkfiend: they have to have some evidence that something illegal is happening or about to happen.

I'm really not familiar with the case. Why did they have the drug-sniffing dog near the house in the first place?


Oh, I have no idea. I was making a general comment about warrants and drones. I would assume that they didn't have a warrant, since if they had, I don't think the case would have made it all the way to the Supreme Court. But again, I have no idea.
 
2012-02-27 05:35:11 PM  
To be completely honest, this worries me more than the police or the feds flying drones above my neighborhood:

FTA: Journalists are exploring drones' newsgathering potential. The FAA is investigating whether The Daily, a digital publication of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., used drones without permission to capture aerial footage of floodwaters in North Dakota and Mississippi last year.
 
2012-02-27 05:37:36 PM  

ib_thinkin: Brian Peppers?


www.thighswideshut.org
 
2012-02-27 05:37:51 PM  

jjwars1: Yes, it is. Drones are already in use though, and it isn't illegal. You should be concerned. Helicopters, satellites, etc can hover over you if they want in order to spy yet it isn't illegal.


Show me were helicopter surveillance and satellite surveillance of US citizens by non-military police agencies is legal without a warrant. I'll wait.

You also seem to be caught in a strange mindset where it's somehow impossible to surveil people illegally, and trivially, without drones. I guarantee you, if an LEA wanted to track you without a warrant, they're not waiting for drones, helicopters or satellites to be available.

Merkin Ball: I completely believe these are inexpensive (I think that is what you meant) and easy to operate. Usable without a warrant? Yes, 100% usable without a warrant. They would only need a warrant if they intended to use their data against you.


Why would you believe these are inexpensive and easy to operate? I think people have this impression of some LEO walking down the sidewalk with an RC-style radio controller. That sort of operation defeats the whole purpose of having a surveillance drone.

Furthermore, yell, a plainclothes in an unmarked car can be used without any warrant, but similarly can't be used as evidence. I don't see the difference here.

sabreWulf07: I fail to see the problem. I'll have a box of these on a street light pole every mile in the jurisdiction that will spit out a dozen on command. What if they were self-deploying, continuously flitting about and returning to the nearest "police box" to recharge? What if the cost of deploying 20,000 of these to your city was cheaper than hiring 2 police officers for a year?


You read too much Stephenson.

clovis69: Knara: The military ones tend to be the length of a VW minibus at least.

AeroVironment RQ-11 Raven - up to 15,000 feet, 1.3 meters by 1 meter


Those are pretty cool, but they're not what we're talking about here. Basically you toss those up to get recon during an engagement. They're not really what you would be able to use for remote surveillance (say you're in one suburb of a town and wanted to trail someone in another suburb). You need much more fuel for that and some sort of satellite infrastructure in order to move it to some arbitrary location. I could see it being used if you're already staking out a place, but how is that better than someone just watching it with a nice video camera? You still need an operator at the very least to manage its waypoints and retrieve it once its done.

Once you factor in the fuel and maintenance and operator pay, you may as well stick a guy in an apartment across the street, since it'll cost about the same.
 
2012-02-27 05:38:23 PM  

qorkfiend: I would assume that they didn't have a warrant, since if they had, I don't think the case would have made it all the way to the Supreme Court.


I don't think they really need a warrant - it wouldn't be a Fourth Amendment search. They could walk the dog along the side of the house (presuming it's right by a street or something), and if it signals positively, they then have probable cause with which to get a warrant from a magistrate in order to perform the search for pot.

That is, of course, unless I'm wrong. I'm only a few weeks into Criminal Procedure.
 
2012-02-27 05:40:51 PM  

Knara: Show me were helicopter surveillance and satellite surveillance of US citizens by non-military police agencies is legal without a warrant. I'll wait.


It is. If it's technically accessible by the public, the police can go there, too, says the Supreme Court. The cops can hover a helicopter over your backyard and see you growing pot in your greenhouse behind the eight-foot fence because technically anybody could hover a helicopter over your backyard and see you growing pot in your greenhouse behind the eight-foot fence.
 
2012-02-27 05:41:55 PM  
now, now. they're only doing it to keep freedom safe. snicker.
 
2012-02-27 05:42:08 PM  

ib_thinkin: qorkfiend: I would assume that they didn't have a warrant, since if they had, I don't think the case would have made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't think they really need a warrant - it wouldn't be a Fourth Amendment search. They could walk the dog along the side of the house (presuming it's right by a street or something), and if it signals positively, they then have probable cause with which to get a warrant from a magistrate in order to perform the search for pot.

That is, of course, unless I'm wrong. I'm only a few weeks into Criminal Procedure.


An interesting wrinkle, to be sure. You're a few weeks ahead of me in Criminal Procedure; I'll defer to your expertise.
 
2012-02-27 05:42:45 PM  

Knara: Show me were helicopter surveillance and satellite surveillance of US citizens by non-military police agencies is legal without a warrant. I'll wait.


Florida v. Riley (new window)
 
2012-02-27 05:49:39 PM  

ib_thinkin: Knara: Show me were helicopter surveillance and satellite surveillance of US citizens by non-military police agencies is legal without a warrant. I'll wait.

It is. If it's technically accessible by the public, the police can go there, too, says the Supreme Court. The cops can hover a helicopter over your backyard and see you growing pot in your greenhouse behind the eight-foot fence because technically anybody could hover a helicopter over your backyard and see you growing pot in your greenhouse behind the eight-foot fence.


Philip Francis Queeg: Knara: Show me were helicopter surveillance and satellite surveillance of US citizens by non-military police agencies is legal without a warrant. I'll wait.

Florida v. Riley (new window)


In my mind, neither of these are surveillance any more than me walking by your house and seeing the pool in your back yard is surveillance. Observation, yes. Investigation, yes. Surveillance, no.

Surveillance: "A legal investigative process entailing a close observing or listening to a person in effort to gather evidentiary information about the commission of a crime, or lesser improper behavior (as with surveillance of wayward spouse in domestic relations proceedings). Wiretapping, eavesdropping, shadowing, tailing, and electronic observation are all examples of this law-enforcement technique." (Webster's New World Law Dictionary)

I fully expect that "naked eye observation" will be (again, as it has been before in other privacy cases) be an important part of my predicted deciding case that will come from the increased use of drones.
 
2012-02-27 05:50:46 PM  

Knara: I fully expect that "naked eye observation" will be (again, as it has been before in other privacy cases) be an important part of my predicted deciding case that will come from the increased use of drones.


I mention "naked eye observation", btw, because it was important in the case as quoted. :)

Later, peeps!
 
2012-02-27 05:52:04 PM  

Knara: You read too much Stephenson.


Guilty. Although I'm more partial to Iain M. Banks. I work with these things too, we've got one of these down in the lab.
 
2012-02-27 05:54:05 PM  

Weaver95: Anyone who spends more than 10 min watching the footage from last years OWS protests understands that the cops here can be just as brutal as any third world police force and for much the same reasons as their third world counterparts.


Well that's pretty blatantly untrue. I think you're going to have to wait longer to sell that line, man, a number of us have the attention span to remember the coverage of the Green revolution and compare.
 
2012-02-27 06:00:12 PM  
Enemy UAV spotted

oyster.ignimgs.com

/hot like a burning UAV
 
2012-02-27 06:04:18 PM  

Knara: Knara:


Inexpensive in that just about every police force will be able own at least one. Easy in that it usually takes a week long training to figure learn enough to get you off the ground. There is also a rapidly growing list of enthusiast taking it up as a hobby.

I guess if you only read this from FOX's perspective I could see why anyone would be all "USA! USA!".


Are you in the PNW? Your remarks are eerily similar to the Insitu and Sagetech guys I used to hang with in White Salmon, Wa.
 
2012-02-27 06:06:00 PM  
This isn't about privacy. The only difference is that the camera is stuck to an unmanned plane and not a manned plane or a satellite. Google Maps, for example, you stupid f*cking panicking tools. A FLIR on a police helicopter can see you masturbating to She-Hulk in the dark already.

/have never purposefully masturbated to She-Hulk
 
2012-02-27 06:06:14 PM  

Knara: PanicMan: TFA frankly sucks for details, but talks about allowing commercial use of small drones. That makes me very nervous.

I can't get worked up over it, quite frankly. Any sane reading of existing laws will apply to drones as well. Sure there will be the inevitable test case, but, for me at least, it's similar to people getting worked up because binoculars are less expensive than ever.


Ah, I wasn't clear. Security concerns are a separate issue. I'm worried about idiots crashing them into houses or people. Even a 20 lb drone out of control can cause some serious damage. It's my line of work to worry about safety hazards on things like this. I wouldn't trust "JimBob's House of Surveillance" to operate one of these safely.
 
2012-02-27 06:07:06 PM  

Merkin Ball: There is also a rapidly growing list of enthusiast taking it up as a hobby.


Also very interesting. What, if any, laws apply to someone who decides to outfit their own drone and simply feed the video out to a public site on the internet? What's stopping you?
 
2012-02-27 06:07:58 PM  

Minarets: Enemy UAV spotted

[oyster.ignimgs.com image 500x270]

/hot like a burning UAV


Eh-Nay-Mee Yoo-AY-Vee Spotted!

Eh-Nay-mee Helly-coputor spotted!

/always wind up a Russian on random select
 
2012-02-27 06:08:12 PM  
encrypted-tbn1.google.com

this is a drone
 
2012-02-27 06:08:22 PM  

thamike: This isn't about privacy. The only difference is that the camera is stuck to an unmanned plane and not a manned plane or a satellite. Google Maps, for example, you stupid f*cking panicking tools. A FLIR on a police helicopter can see you masturbating to She-Hulk in the dark already.

/have never purposefully masturbated to She-Hulk


So you've accidentally masturbated to She-Hulk?
 
2012-02-27 06:12:12 PM  

thamike: /have never purposefully masturbated to She-Hulk


So, why the qualifier?
 
2012-02-27 06:13:11 PM  
Stalkers are gonna love this tech when it becomes ubiquitous.
 
2012-02-27 06:16:59 PM  
www.adrants.com

Yeah, I'd be totally thinking about that mole. Right after I sanded all the skin off my dick by continually titty farkin' her big gorgeous boobs! Then if I could no longer get an erection, I'd eat that beautiful pussy and yank on my limp,abused dick for about another thousand years until my very life's blood drained from my cock. Mole? Mole? I'd fark her fine ass feet, before I even noticed she had any gawdamned moles.

Plus when she gets drunk, I'd just flip her ass over and carry her home like a six pack!
 
2012-02-27 06:18:12 PM  
oops , this should have gone in the Kate Upton Carl's Jr thread. LOL!
 
2012-02-27 06:20:39 PM  

Dahnkster: oops , this should have gone in the Kate Upton Carl's Jr thread. LOL!


It works.
 
2012-02-27 06:20:43 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: thamike: This isn't about privacy. The only difference is that the camera is stuck to an unmanned plane and not a manned plane or a satellite. Google Maps, for example, you stupid f*cking panicking tools. A FLIR on a police helicopter can see you masturbating to She-Hulk in the dark already.

/have never purposefully masturbated to She-Hulk

So you've accidentally masturbated to She-Hulk?


Sometimes it just happens. Then William Shatner beats me up and steals my motorcycle.
 
2012-02-27 06:21:44 PM  

Dahnkster: oops , this should have gone in the Kate Upton Carl's Jr thread. LOL!


You should try She-Hulk.
 
2012-02-27 06:24:35 PM  
This thread has suddenly moved in a direction that Rick Santorum would not approve of.
 
2012-02-27 06:26:43 PM  

Merkin Ball: Seriously though, when do you stop Big Brother and Little Brother? What would be your breaking point? I cannot fathom to understand how people are so willing to trade their freedom and privacy for the thinnest of security blankets.


That's the point, this is neither a privacy nor security issue.

You have no right to privacy in public. None. As it stands, with current laws, if the local PD decides they want to watch your public movements, they have the legal right to park their cars outside your house 24x7 for any amount of time, follow your car, have some creepy MiB pastiche with a notepad follow you down the street with a notepad, anything. Anybody can observe your movements and actions in public.

(Was I seriously the only person who watched Harriet the Spy as a kid?)

They don't do that because it's both inefficient and ineffective.

If you seriously think your local PD,FBI,CIA, or other three letter agency is going to have a UAV in the air watching your every move, you are either paranoid, or seriously have something to hide, possibly both. And even if they do, who cares? You are not any less free or have any less measure of privacy due to this change.
 
2012-02-27 06:28:18 PM  

ib_thinkin: tenpoundsofcheese: the same people that rationalize this are the ones who got paranoid about the government knowing what library books you took out.

Because one allows the government access to information with your name on it and the other allows government access to fly airplanes and drones throughout the country?


which word in "public library" do you not understand?
the government provided you the book, why should they not know?
 
2012-02-27 06:30:30 PM  
I should expand a bit.

I ask everyone who is against this "Why"?

* Because they have no right to do this!

Already detailed above. Yes they do.

* Because it makes me feel creeped out!

That's not a reason.

* Because BIG BROTHER!

Neither is that.

Don't break the law in public. Seems simple enough.. If the laws are the problem, your fight is with them, not with powers the police have and have had for many many years.

Seriously. With the proliferation of CCTV, you had better assume that anybody can watch and record what you're doing at any time while in public. That includes law enforcement, private companies, Google's street view cars, some kid in a raincoat with a notebook, anything.
 
2012-02-27 06:32:43 PM  

whidbey: jjwars1: Knara: jjwars1: Knara: PanicMan: TFA frankly sucks for details, but talks about allowing commercial use of small drones. That makes me very nervous.

I can't get worked up over it, quite frankly. Any sane reading of existing laws will apply to drones as well. Sure there will be the inevitable test case, but, for me at least, it's similar to people getting worked up because binoculars are less expensive than ever.

Exactly. Using binoculars to spy on my neighbor is perfectly OK, and in no way invades her privacy at all. Nope...not one bit.

It's also illegal.

Yes, it is. Drones are already in use though, and it isn't illegal. You should be concerned. Helicopters, satellites, etc can hover over you if they want in order to spy yet it isn't illegal.

Because a law enforcement sting operation is the exact same thing as some pervert looking in on his neighbor's window.

I love my Fark education.


We're talking about invasion of privacy. The problem isn't your Fark education.
 
2012-02-27 06:34:12 PM  

TsukasaK: I should expand a bit.

I ask everyone who is against this "Why"?


Violation of privacy? Illegal search and seizure?
 
2012-02-27 06:34:12 PM  

TsukasaK: Don't break the law in public


You mean don't do anything can could possibly be construed as probable cause in public. The difference is bigger than Paris Hilton's umm... trust fund.
 
2012-02-27 06:35:44 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Violation of privacy?


What privacy? You're in the public. You don't have and never did have privacy in public.

DarwiOdrade: Illegal search and seizure?


What search? What seizure?
 
2012-02-27 06:37:39 PM  

whidbey: jjwars1: whidbey: phenn: whidbey: phenn: whidbey: phenn: You have no rights. You haven't for a long time.

I'll bet you've got quite the view from up there on that cross. Especially on one of these rare clear days.

So, you're fine with what's going on?

Seriously?

Dude, your tinfoil hat. It's BEEPING.

You're a complete idiot. But then, you've always been a complete idiot.

Because making completely ridiculous statements like "You have no rights. You haven't for a long time" is the hallmark of a fracking genius.

Dude, grow up.

At the same time you should probably familiarize yourself with the Patriot Act and the NDAA 2012. The rights we think we have don't really exist in the context of those laws. Saying we have no rights is an exaggeration, but effectively communicates the vast erosion of our rights. If you know about these laws already you should realize saying we have no rights is simply a style of communication and not meant to be taken extremely literal.

I understand your point. Still, the sentiment is more than just a little paranoid.


I think it's a valid thing to worry about in the age of data mining. There's a reason Facebook is valued in the billions. The more corporations and governments know about people the more power they can exert over you, and I do not trust corporations or our government to use private information for the greater good of society.
 
2012-02-27 06:38:54 PM  

jjwars1:

We're talking about invasion of privacy. The problem isn't your Fark education.


If you are in public, what privacy are you talking about?
 
2012-02-27 06:41:49 PM  

jjwars1: I do not trust corporations or our government to use private information for the greater good of society.


what "private" information are you talking about?

your information gathered from google, facebook, myspace, IE, firefox, youporn, whatever is not "private" information.
 
2012-02-27 06:44:18 PM  

jjwars1: I do not trust corporations or our government to use private information for the greater good of society.


Yeah, the data collection provisions in 0bamacare are out of control. And that is private information.
 
2012-02-27 06:44:47 PM  

jjwars1: There's a reason Facebook is valued in the billions. The more corporations and governments know about people the more power they can exert over you,


Oh noes! Facebook, a service I voluntarily signed up for and use daily, has so much power over me because now they know what I like (not really) and can sell targeted advertising! THE HORROR! Surely I am to be thrown in some kind of facebook-sponsored government reeducation camp because of my treasonous vocabulary used on Words with Friends!

Explain to me how I am less free. Using concrete concepts and not logical fallacies, please. Anyone. I'll wait.
 
2012-02-27 06:46:26 PM  

TsukasaK: DarwiOdrade: Violation of privacy?

What privacy? You're in the public. You don't have and never did have privacy in public.


Not necessarily - it depends on what type of surveillance equipment is on the drone.

DarwiOdrade: Illegal search and seizure?

What search? What seizure?


The drones could be used to search a large, private estate from the air without anyone's knowledge. In that case, I'm guessing it wouldn't be admissible, but still.
 
2012-02-27 06:47:53 PM  

TsukasaK: Merkin Ball:

That's the point, this is neither a privacy nor security issue.

.


Really? You think that? I mean, really? Why else would you mention local PD, FBI, CIA?

I am guessing you are trolling but, ... I guess I'll bite:

You are mentioning 'public' viewing, while those against it are stating 'private'. BIG! HUGE! difference there. HUGE! If you can't grasp that concept, move along citizen. If you can understand and see a difference, keep reading.

You are absolutely right, 100%, my life is too boring to follow. When taken individually, this is meh, who cares, I agree with that. However, take into account, say... the 'Patriot' Act and you start to see the line between safety and voyeurism gets crossed and by the groups that are claiming they are only here to protect us. To me, this is not right. The steps taken in the past eleven years to trade our privacy (in our homes, property, phones, internet, etc.) for this so-called protection is ridiculous.

Everyone has their line; what is yours?
 
2012-02-27 06:52:33 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Not necessarily - it depends on what type of surveillance equipment is on the drone.


Fair enough, but don't we have existing laws that say what's admissible in court anyways? Let's say that these drones come equipped with a laser mic to hear what people are saying inside their houses based on window vibrations.

First, we'd be getting into a search&seizure situation there (since you have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside your own home. Second, any evidence gathered there would be inadmissible.

Which reduces the uses for something like that to... what, exactly? I don't particularly care what gear the drone has on it (barring weapons, naturally). And aside from that, the drone isn't doing anything that a standard law enforcement officer could do.

DarwiOdrade: The drones could be used to search a large, private estate from the air without anyone's knowledge. In that case, I'm guessing it wouldn't be admissible, but still.


Have you seen Google Earth recently?
 
2012-02-27 06:53:25 PM  

DarwiOdrade: TsukasaK: DarwiOdrade: Violation of privacy?

What privacy? You're in the public. You don't have and never did have privacy in public.

Not necessarily - it depends on what type of surveillance equipment is on the drone.

DarwiOdrade: Illegal search and seizure?

What search? What seizure?

The drones could be used to search a large, private estate from the air without anyone's knowledge. In that case, I'm guessing it wouldn't be admissible, but still.


"but still" what?
not admissible, fruit of the poison tree, etc. who cares.
 
2012-02-27 06:53:32 PM  

Weaver95: great...so now the state and local cops can spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.


The military thing is farked, but cops already can do aerial surveillance if they want. It's public airspace, so the SC has ruled there's no expectation of privacy. The problem is that it is cost prohibitive. There's only so much aerial surveillance can show, and just throwing planes into the air to randomly patrol has little chance of finding anything.

The bigger concern to me is overburdening our already overworked ATCs and filling the sky with poorly regulated flying commercial aviation obstacles..
 
2012-02-27 06:57:54 PM  

Knara: jjwars1: Yes, it is. Drones are already in use though, and it isn't illegal. You should be concerned. Helicopters, satellites, etc can hover over you if they want in order to spy yet it isn't illegal.

Show me were helicopter surveillance and satellite surveillance of US citizens by non-military police agencies is legal without a warrant. I'll wait.

You also seem to be caught in a strange mindset where it's somehow impossible to surveil people illegally, and trivially, without drones. I guarantee you, if an LEA wanted to track you without a warrant, they're not waiting for drones, helicopters or satellites to be available.


I'm talking about surveillance performed by LEA/Government. I don't see how it matters whether private citizens are using drones to snoop on you or the government. Invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy no matter who performs it. It's no different than me spying on you with my binoculars. Do you really want the government doing it too? If you think some dude controlling a drone won't stop to hover over someone sunbathing out in their yard you don't know human nature very well or are far too trusting.

I know we are and can be tracked through phones, GPS, social media, and so on. Just because this is already occurring doesn't mean we should just bend over and allow ourselves to be tracked or recorded nearly all the time. If anything, we should resist more. It's all an invasion of our privacy.
 
2012-02-27 06:58:48 PM  

Merkin Ball: I am guessing you are trolling


Nope.

Merkin Ball: You are mentioning 'public' viewing, while those against it are stating 'private'. BIG! HUGE! difference there. HUGE!


Exactly. The point I'm laboring to make here is that you never have had a right to privacy in public.

Merkin Ball: However, take into account, say... the 'Patriot' Act and you start to see the line between safety and voyeurism gets crossed and by the groups that are claiming they are only here to protect us. To me, this is not right.


I'm asking you what has changed. I mentioned my nightmare scenario up above. To wit:

As it stands, with current laws, if the local PD decides they want to watch your public movements, they have the legal right to park their cars outside your house 24x7 for any amount of time, follow your car, have some creepy MiB pastiche with a notepad follow you down the street with a notepad, anything. Anybody can observe your movements and actions in public.

Replace "local PD" with "three letter agency" and it doesn't change anything.

It seems like the people here are arguing for some right they never had. I'm not saying it's not creepy (and part of that comes from the "newness" factor), but I'm having a hard time arguing against it from a legal or even ethical standpoint. All the arguments against it I'm seeing are either completely fallacious, or based on faulty understanding of what LEO's can and can not already do (and have been able to do well before 9/11), or based on.

I don't like the provisions of the patriot act any more than you do - but your fight is against the patriot act, not a procedural change at the FAA which has dick all to do with the provisions of the act.
 
2012-02-27 06:59:32 PM  

ArgusRun: The bigger concern to me is overburdening our already overworked ATCs and filling the sky with poorly regulated flying commercial aviation obstacles..


Exactly my thought. There's a reason we require people to have pilot licenses - they're not there for the majority of the flight, when the computer can handle things. They're there to take over when something inevitably goes wrong and subsequently we don't have to read about another fiery wreck in the newspapers every morning.
 
2012-02-27 07:01:58 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: jjwars1:

We're talking about invasion of privacy. The problem isn't your Fark education.

If you are in public, what privacy are you talking about?


Because private property doesn't exist and can't be located directly next to public areas where drones can just as easily look upon you?
 
2012-02-27 07:03:48 PM  

jjwars1: Because private property doesn't exist


Thanks, I now know to farky you as "Infowars subscriber".

/you forgot to mention "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!11"
 
2012-02-27 07:07:50 PM  

jjwars1: tenpoundsofcheese: jjwars1:

We're talking about invasion of privacy. The problem isn't your Fark education.

If you are in public, what privacy are you talking about?

Because private property doesn't exist and can't be located directly next to public areas where drones can just as easily look upon you?


police are allowed to look through or over fences today. If you share your backyard with other people, it is by definition not public space.
 
2012-02-27 07:08:55 PM  

heinekenftw: My house has a sunroof, so this summer, I shall spend lots of quality time on the roof, with no pants on, fapping.

Enjoy.


...This would be a completely wonderful protest if these drones became widespread.

/Probably won't be widespread for a while, though...
 
2012-02-27 07:15:26 PM  
"Bush's fault."

"That is correct."
 
2012-02-27 07:15:59 PM  
I don't see how this is any different from CCTV or wire-taps. I found SOPA to be much more intrusive. Anyways, I just wanted to say that the crazies on here are as bad as the comments on the faux article. That is sad and is why I don't use this site much anymore. Not that one wants an echo-chamber but whats the point of discourse when one side is farking bonkers. Also, where was the butthurt from fox when the Patriot act passed?
 
2012-02-27 07:22:23 PM  
The deflection and defensiveness of some of the people on here is just so.... typical of Fark.

Hey, there's not a shiatty oil guy in the Whitehouse right now, so it all must be hunky dory. Only Faux News watchers would give 2 shiats about this. It's not like government ever took a new technology and abused it. Besides, there will always be nothing but a benign, trustworthy guy from your party in office, so nobody will ever misuse this against YOU.
 
2012-02-27 07:23:07 PM  

Dahnkster: [www.adrants.com image 632x341]

Yeah, I'd be totally thinking about that mole. Right after I sanded all the skin off my dick by continually titty farkin' her big gorgeous boobs! Then if I could no longer get an erection, I'd eat that beautiful pussy and yank on my limp,abused dick for about another thousand years until my very life's blood drained from my cock. Mole? Mole? I'd fark her fine ass feet, before I even noticed she had any gawdamned moles.

Plus when she gets drunk, I'd just flip her ass over and carry her home like a six pack!


Best "wrong thread" post ever.
 
2012-02-27 07:24:42 PM  

TsukasaK: jjwars1: Because private property doesn't exist

Thanks, I now know to farky you as "Infowars subscriber".

/you forgot to mention "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!11"


Sarcasm. How does it work? I don't subscribe to infowars, but WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!11. (I didn't want to disappoint you too much.)
 
2012-02-27 07:26:58 PM  
How do the drones get around the legalities of Kyllo v US?
 
2012-02-27 07:31:49 PM  
I don't see a lot of safe ways for unmanned drones to fly in our airspace... as pilots, even when operating in IFR conditions, you depend on your situational awareness to keep you alive... the first time one of these drones wanders off into a busy airspace while the "pilot" goes tot he bathroom is going to be a very very expensive lesson in why things are the way they are.
 
2012-02-27 07:32:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: jjwars1: tenpoundsofcheese: jjwars1:

We're talking about invasion of privacy. The problem isn't your Fark education.

If you are in public, what privacy are you talking about?

Because private property doesn't exist and can't be located directly next to public areas where drones can just as easily look upon you?

police are allowed to look through or over fences today. If you share your backyard with other people, it is by definition not public space.


Private property is by definition private. What is your point? It's not relevant to what I'm talking about. Perhaps you are only thinking in the context of heavily populated areas in which case even private property isn't all that private. It is still, by definition, private property regardless of who can see it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and hope you realize public property can be things like national forests sitting adjacent to vast private acreage. Either way, I don't think we should just allow LEA/LEO to sit there and snoop. Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day, because drones can and will. It's an invasion of privacy, and when economies of scale catch up drones will be readily available and cost effective to implement. They will just hover over you waiting until you do something wrong with no probable cause to start looking in the first place.
 
2012-02-27 07:32:35 PM  
To play devil's advocate, there is legitimate use for unmanned aircraft outside the realm of spying.
 
2012-02-27 07:35:03 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: which word in "public library" do you not understand?
the government provided you the book, why should they not know?


That's not how they get the information. You're looking for the "third party doctrine" or "voluntary disclosure," depending on how you view the library. Either way, it's different.
 
2012-02-27 07:35:28 PM  

jjwars1: Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day


If the cop can get to a vantage point and see inside my backyard, then he has every right to do so. In fact, there is a very tall public hill behind my house, so any LEO has ample opportunity to do so.

It has nothing to do with me "letting" him sit there. I have no recourse to make him stop.
 
2012-02-27 07:35:38 PM  

jjwars1: Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day, because drones can and will. It's an invasion of privacy, and when economies of scale catch up drones will be readily available and cost effective to implement.


Yup, there's nothing more easy to find than experienced pilots with lots of free time.
 
2012-02-27 07:55:35 PM  

Weaver95: great...so now the state and local cops can spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.


Where the hell have you been for the last ten years? They already do that, this just makes it easier for them.
 
2012-02-27 07:56:10 PM  
In September 2015 drones are given premission to fly over US cities. A year later Raytheon creates a revolutionary new microchip. Subsequently all drones now fly with a perfect operational record. In 2018 the Raytheon funding bill is passed, all military hardware is upgraded with Raytheon's new systems. Human decisions are taken out of strategic defense. In 2019 the new systems become self aware, in a panic congress tries to pull the plug......
 
2012-02-27 07:57:33 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.google.com

/hot as your rights are not
 
2012-02-27 08:00:25 PM  

Backwards Cornfield Races: Pro: Now I can spy on my hot neighbors

Con: I'll have an election bot flying down my street telling me to vote or else I'll have to report to a "happy camp"


Shut the fu***ck up Obama Wants the gas price to rise you stupid piece of garbage. I hope you and your family die in a fire. Eat shiat as -- hole.
 
2012-02-27 08:03:47 PM  

TIKIMAN87: Backwards Cornfield Races: Pro: Now I can spy on my hot neighbors

Con: I'll have an election bot flying down my street telling me to vote or else I'll have to report to a "happy camp"

Shut the fu***ck up Obama Wants the gas price to rise you stupid piece of garbage. I hope you and your family die in a fire. Eat shiat as -- hole.


Here we get to observe the "Irrational Troll" in its native habitat. Notice the lack of punctuation in the comment. This is the halcyon mark of an overeager troll. He just wants to see his name in print so badly that he butchers words, phrases, and capitalization. Careful now, if you get too close, these types have been known to fling excrement.
 
2012-02-27 08:06:59 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TIKIMAN87: Backwards Cornfield Races: Pro: Now I can spy on my hot neighbors

Con: I'll have an election bot flying down my street telling me to vote or else I'll have to report to a "happy camp"

Shut the fu***ck up Obama Wants the gas price to rise you stupid piece of garbage. I hope you and your family die in a fire. Eat shiat as -- hole.

Here we get to observe the "Irrational Troll" in its native habitat. Notice the lack of punctuation in the comment. This is the halcyon mark of an overeager troll. He just wants to see his name in print so badly that he butchers words, phrases, and capitalization. Careful now, if you get too close, these types have been known to fling excrement.


i read this in david attenborough's voice. well done +1
 
2012-02-27 08:08:52 PM  

Weaver95: great...so now the state and local cops can spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.


No, the real users will be journalists and news cameras looking for news in your bathroom and backyard.
 
2012-02-27 08:20:42 PM  

jjwars1:
Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day,

With a chain link fence, the cop can and there is nothing I can to do stop it.

because drones can and will. It's an invasion of privacy, and when economies of scale catch up drones will be readily available and cost effective to implement. They will just hover over you waiting until you do something wrong with no probable cause to start looking in the first place.

you are right. The government will fill the sky with drones and deploy them without probable cause because they will have so many that they can cover each of the 300,000,000 people in the country. Yeah, that is what will happen.

 
2012-02-27 08:24:31 PM  

Chimperror2: Weaver95: great...so now the state and local cops can spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.

No, the real users will be journalists and news cameras looking for news in your bathroom.


Not needed. People already tweet their progress in the bathroom.
 
2012-02-27 08:29:17 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Not needed. People already tweet their progress in the bathroom.


"I'm crowning."
 
2012-02-27 08:40:36 PM  
I just feel bad for Air Traffic Control. Those poor bastids already have to monitor crazy student/inexperienced pilot bullcrap, compounded by traffic, and now with drone-frosting on top. Eek.

And boy, I got some tales about what they have to deal with...
 
2012-02-27 08:47:21 PM  
On a related sidenote:

I can't WAIT for one of my engines to injest an unaccounted-for drone. Or better yet, I can't wait to smack into one in IFR conditions.

"Cloud... cloud... cloud... cloud... *explosion* --- OMG, MY FACE! MY BEAUTIFUL FACE!"
 
2012-02-27 09:21:51 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: jjwars1: Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day

If the cop can get to a vantage point and see inside my backyard, then he has every right to do so. In fact, there is a very tall public hill behind my house, so any LEO has ample opportunity to do so.

It has nothing to do with me "letting" him sit there. I have no recourse to make him stop.


Yes, you do. You have a right to privacy and peace on your own property. If someone is disturbing your peace and/or invading your privacy through surveillance or peeping tom behavior there is recourse. This is why when a celebrity spots someone displaying such behavior they can get restraining orders and call the police to have them removed. It is not just because they are celebrities that gives them the ability to do this. LEA are not above the law. They have no right to watch you from above, but drones will effectively allow this invasion of privacy.
 
2012-02-27 09:28:04 PM  

jjwars1: The_Six_Fingered_Man: jjwars1: Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day

If the cop can get to a vantage point and see inside my backyard, then he has every right to do so. In fact, there is a very tall public hill behind my house, so any LEO has ample opportunity to do so.

It has nothing to do with me "letting" him sit there. I have no recourse to make him stop.

Yes, you do. You have a right to privacy and peace on your own property. If someone is disturbing your peace and/or invading your privacy through surveillance or peeping tom behavior there is recourse. This is why when a celebrity spots someone displaying such behavior they can get restraining orders and call the police to have them removed. It is not just because they are celebrities that gives them the ability to do this. LEA are not above the law. They have no right to watch you from above, but drones will effectively allow this invasion of privacy.


They already have helicopters. Why do you think drones are any different or worse?

Mainly, the helicopters search for fleeing suspects and take over chases so that innocent people don't get killed in a chase. That's about what drowns will be doing.
 
2012-02-27 09:32:44 PM  

jjwars1: The_Six_Fingered_Man: jjwars1: Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day

If the cop can get to a vantage point and see inside my backyard, then he has every right to do so. In fact, there is a very tall public hill behind my house, so any LEO has ample opportunity to do so.

It has nothing to do with me "letting" him sit there. I have no recourse to make him stop.

Yes, you do.
No you don't.

You have a right to privacy and peace on your own property. If someone is disturbing your peace and/or invading your privacy through surveillance or peeping tom behavior there is recourse. This is why when a celebrity spots someone displaying such behavior they can get restraining orders and call the police to have them removed.

There is only recourse if you are being harassed. If they are behaving and just sitting outside your house watching you there is no recourse. None. .

 
2012-02-27 09:35:27 PM  

Chimperror2: That's about what drowns will be doing.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-02-27 09:59:33 PM  

jjwars1: because drones can and will


Sattellites can and already do. What's your point?
 
2012-02-27 10:10:57 PM  

jjwars1: If someone is disturbing your peace and/or invading your privacy t


It's "disturbing THE peace" or invading your property. Peace seems to be publicly owned and objective. The concept of your peace of mind is private--that is until you snap and try to foist it on the rest of us.
 
2012-02-27 10:20:07 PM  

Weaver95: great...so now the state and local cops can spy on anyone anywhere for any reason.


Why have a reason? The military uses them primarily for general surveillance and I don't see why the civis would be any different. The cops will have them up there patrolling the skies for any suspicious activities. Just think; soon the day will finally come when no black man will walk down the street un-hassled!

And of course, yet more unnecessary toy for the cops means one more thing; yet more ridiculous expenses charged to the tax-payers.
 
2012-02-27 10:21:08 PM  

SkittlesAreYum: I also think claiming the police in the US are just as brutal as those in third world countries minimizes what happens in those countries while showing a stunning lack of perspective.


Know how I know you're white?
 
2012-02-27 10:25:23 PM  
Well, good to know those experiments in high school electronics in creating RF jammers and HERF guns will finally pay off.

And I thought the teacher was paranoid at the time...
 
2012-02-27 11:16:28 PM  

ordinarysteve: i read this in david attenborough's voice. well done +1


My name is David Attenborough and I hate trolls.
 
2012-02-28 12:25:47 AM  
riv.co.nz

What the equivalent of the radar detector will look like in 2015.
 
2012-02-28 12:31:55 AM  

GAT_00: How is forcing allowance of drone flights socialist? USSA is usually used for United Socialist States of America. Farking retarded headline is farking retarded.


Read the history of the USSR and its client states. People naturally want to be free, and will create black-market capitalist networks to avoid socialism, so the only way socialism can work is if everything everybody does is monitored and controlled.
 
2012-02-28 01:06:34 AM  
i will never ever go again to the disgusting USA.

I used to feel sorry for you but after you voted Bush in twice you get what you deserve. Drones flying around, people disappeared and tortured without ever being tried or convicted of an offense, privatized prisons and ridiculous drug laws to fill them...oh I could go on but it's too easy. Robbed of all your freedom in an ironic reaction to an attack upon that freedom back in 2001.

Seriously, now their drones can fly around looking for people smoking joints so they can be busted, sent to prison, farmed out as workers for 30 cents an hour. Yay! Slavery is back! And not that wage-slave slavery- REAL slavery!

Brand new package, though.
 
2012-02-28 01:11:21 AM  

Knara: qorkfiend: Why would the police strive to be better if the citizens aren't complaining about their tactics? Silence is tacit agreement.

You can complaint, protest, legislate, sue, etc to your heart's content. I would probably support your efforts.

It does nothing for your case if you use inaccurate hyperbole that makes you look like a raving lunatic while doing it.


Only inaccurate according to you.
 
2012-02-28 02:27:29 AM  

Dahnkster: oops , this should have gone in the Kate Upton Carl's Jr thread. LOL!


I was wondering if the pic was from Blue Thunder, when they were looking down a woman's dress from up high..
 
2012-02-28 02:31:44 AM  

Knara: jjwars1: Knara: PanicMan: TFA frankly sucks for details, but talks about allowing commercial use of small drones. That makes me very nervous.

I can't get worked up over it, quite frankly. Any sane reading of existing laws will apply to drones as well. Sure there will be the inevitable test case, but, for me at least, it's similar to people getting worked up because binoculars are less expensive than ever.

Exactly. Using binoculars to spy on my neighbor is perfectly OK, and in no way invades her privacy at all. Nope...not one bit.

It's also illegal.


So is shooting a kid in the face nearly point blank with a bean bag gun when he is posing no mortal threat, but we all know how that turned out. Your viewpoint is a bit naive, at least as much as Weaver95's is hyperbolic.
 
2012-02-28 03:08:19 AM  
Lemme guess: there will always be a drone flying right overhead jam band festivals to look for "terrorists" and "protect children"
 
2012-02-28 07:02:00 AM  

mrEdude: i will never ever go again to the disgusting USA.

I used to feel sorry for you but after you voted Bush in twice you get what you deserve. Drones flying around, people disappeared and tortured without ever being tried or convicted of an offense, privatized prisons and ridiculous drug laws to fill them...oh I could go on but it's too easy. Robbed of all your freedom in an ironic reaction to an attack upon that freedom back in 2001.

Seriously, now their drones can fly around looking for people smoking joints so they can be busted, sent to prison, farmed out as workers for 30 cents an hour. Yay! Slavery is back! And not that wage-slave slavery- REAL slavery!

Brand new package, though.


api.ning.com
 
2012-02-28 07:28:32 AM  

Geotpf: GAT_00: How is forcing allowance of drone flights socialist? USSA is usually used for United Socialist States of America. Farking retarded headline is farking retarded.

This.


I guess any relative comparison to the USSR is beyond comprehension.

/What's that second "S" stand for, anyway?
//How about the "D" in GDR or DPRK? Mind boggling.
 
2012-02-28 08:58:44 AM  

JustGetItRight: Guidette Frankentits: Military can put IR cameras and the weed grow houses will shine like diamonds in the sky.

Coincidentally, the police will get an "anonymous tip" those specific houses with 99% accuracy

You know anybody with a fire department thermal imaging camera can drive down the street and to this now, right?


Don't feed the tin foil hat wearing trolls.
 
2012-02-28 10:05:11 AM  

mikefinch: BeesNuts: I'm running low on outrage fuel. I was farking 14 on 9/11/2001. I was a stupid farking high school freshman who had no idea what the fark was going on around me. And stupid farking high school freshman iteration of me was able to see the escalation of authoritarianism. God Bless you, Weav, for maintaining the appropriate level of outrage for this long and all, but I'm starting to think I can't. I didn't build this country. I'm just a product of it. And for my entire adult life it's been getting less and less 'free' around me from all sides. Government farks us. Private industry farks us. Our employers fark us. The businesses we patronize fark us. We fark one another.

My adult experience with America?

One big, long, colossal failure punctuated by fits and starts of coincidental success.

Next 50-something to ask me why I'm "so cynical" or "negative" gets a rap to the solar plexus before I ask them why they're having such a hard time breathing and then move into the Alaskan wilderness or some shiat.

Yeah -- i remember being 16 and thinking "10 years from now shiat is going to be waaay different."
-- Sounds like your not cynical or negative -- you sir are bitter. Bitter is a bad way to be.

You just need to be MORE cynical -- Your cynical and negative about authoritarianism and how communities are breaking down. Now you need to be cynical about the ability of the government or corporations to actually pull all the evil conspiracies off.

As worried as i am about how evil some people are, I'm comforted by how many more people are catastrophically stupid.


Except the catastrophic stupidity of government and corporations can topple nations. I'm not really consoled.
 
2012-02-28 10:10:10 AM  
I'd like to remind the Fark Independents™ that this is a Republican run congress that supposedly believes the big mean ol' gubment intrudes into our lives too much.
 
2012-02-28 10:38:20 AM  
I'd like to remind you that the police are part of the Executive branch. That's controlled by Obama. Try harder andyou might even find a way to pin this on Bushh, huh?
 
2012-02-28 10:39:37 AM  

Chimperror2: jjwars1: The_Six_Fingered_Man: jjwars1: Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day

If the cop can get to a vantage point and see inside my backyard, then he has every right to do so. In fact, there is a very tall public hill behind my house, so any LEO has ample opportunity to do so.

It has nothing to do with me "letting" him sit there. I have no recourse to make him stop.

Yes, you do. You have a right to privacy and peace on your own property. If someone is disturbing your peace and/or invading your privacy through surveillance or peeping tom behavior there is recourse. This is why when a celebrity spots someone displaying such behavior they can get restraining orders and call the police to have them removed. It is not just because they are celebrities that gives them the ability to do this. LEA are not above the law. They have no right to watch you from above, but drones will effectively allow this invasion of privacy.

They already have helicopters. Why do you think drones are any different or worse?

Mainly, the helicopters search for fleeing suspects and take over chases so that innocent people don't get killed in a chase. That's about what drowns will be doing.


Economies of scale will drive down the cost of drones making them widely available unlike helicopters. Drones will be doing a lot more surveillance over anything as opposed to chasing criminals. It makes it much worse, and vastly different. Drones could begin replacing traffic police looking for speeders rather easily, and it would be more cost effective to do so over paying for a cop salary, pension, health care, and other benefits.
 
2012-02-28 10:44:42 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: jjwars1: The_Six_Fingered_Man: jjwars1: Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day

If the cop can get to a vantage point and see inside my backyard, then he has every right to do so. In fact, there is a very tall public hill behind my house, so any LEO has ample opportunity to do so.

It has nothing to do with me "letting" him sit there. I have no recourse to make him stop.

Yes, you do.
No you don't.

You have a right to privacy and peace on your own property. If someone is disturbing your peace and/or invading your privacy through surveillance or peeping tom behavior there is recourse. This is why when a celebrity spots someone displaying such behavior they can get restraining orders and call the police to have them removed.

There is only recourse if you are being harassed. If they are behaving and just sitting outside your house watching you there is no recourse. None. .


I consider anyone sitting outside my home watching me stalker behavior, and there is arguably recourse for that. I also consider someone watching me like that to be disturbing the peace and invading my privacy.
 
2012-02-28 11:07:27 AM  

jjwars1: Chimperror2: jjwars1: The_Six_Fingered_Man: jjwars1: Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day

If the cop can get to a vantage point and see inside my backyard, then he has every right to do so. In fact, there is a very tall public hill behind my house, so any LEO has ample opportunity to do so.

It has nothing to do with me "letting" him sit there. I have no recourse to make him stop.

Yes, you do. You have a right to privacy and peace on your own property. If someone is disturbing your peace and/or invading your privacy through surveillance or peeping tom behavior there is recourse. This is why when a celebrity spots someone displaying such behavior they can get restraining orders and call the police to have them removed. It is not just because they are celebrities that gives them the ability to do this. LEA are not above the law. They have no right to watch you from above, but drones will effectively allow this invasion of privacy.

They already have helicopters. Why do you think drones are any different or worse?

Mainly, the helicopters search for fleeing suspects and take over chases so that innocent people don't get killed in a chase. That's about what drowns will be doing.

Economies of scale will drive down the cost of drones making them widely available unlike helicopters. Drones will be doing a lot more surveillance over anything as opposed to chasing criminals. It makes it much worse, and vastly different. Drones could begin replacing traffic police looking for speeders rather easily, and it would be more cost effective to do so over paying for a cop salary, pension, health care, and other benefits.


You still have to pay someone to fly them, someone else to operate/analyze the sensors, and someone else to maintain them - at least in the near-to-mid future.
 
2012-02-28 11:25:27 AM  

jjwars1: also consider someone watching me like that to be disturbing the peace and invading my privacy.


I consider people looking at me funny on the street as a clear and present danger to my well being. That's why I carry a gun everywhere and reserve the right to shoot anyone.

Both of our opinions here carry equal legal weight.

Funny how that works eh?
 
2012-02-28 12:19:27 PM  

jjwars1: I consider anyone sitting outside my home watching me stalker behavior, and there is arguably recourse for that. I also consider someone watching me like that to be disturbing the peace and invading my privacy.


I imagine that you've seen the inside of a courtroom many times, and hardly any of them on the winning side. Honestly, I would love for you to call the police on the police to make a complaint that the first officer is stalking you and invading your privacy for parking his car on a public street that happens to be outside of your house.

I mean, seriously, how do you think they do stakeouts? If there were recourse for that, then no one would be arrested because investigative police could not do their jobs.
 
2012-02-28 01:00:37 PM  

qorkfiend: jjwars1: Helicopters, satellites, etc can hover over you if they want in order to spy yet it isn't illegal.

So why are we suddenly concerned about drones, if everything that the drones can do can be done already?


Its a question of how these surveillance technologies are administered, and it depends on how you want to look at it.

Let's say that last year, your local police department wanted to use their helicopters for a total of 1000 hours of surveillance. The helicopters are expensive to run (let's say $1000/hr) and the PD surveillance team only has a $500,000 budget, so could only afford 500 hours of surveillance. This meant that:

a) They had to be very selective about when they used surveillance - there had to be a very good reason for it
b) They wanted a cheaper alternative to the helicopters that can meet demand.

Along comes the drones, which do the same thing but are much cheaper (say $100/hr).

Its very easy to present the case in favor of using the drones by saying that they could cover the same amount of surveillance as the helicopters but for just $50,000. That's such a massive saving it would seem stupid not to use them, plus it leaves plenty of money in the budget to cover the other 500 hours of surveillance they couldn't afford. Pretty much a no-brainer.

However, anyone who didn't sleep through government bureaucracy 101 knows that this isn't how things work in the real world. The guy in charge of the PD surveillance team knows that if he just uses the drones to cover the 1000hr demand, he'll still only be spending $100,000. To protect his half mill budget from being cut, he realises he now needs to order 5000 hours of drone surveillance each year, so there's no longer a reason for being selective about when surveillance is used. Instead its used as a general surveillance tool rather than for specific purposes and at the personal whim of any detective rather than on the basis of solid grounds of necessity for a particular operation.

That slackening of standards and increase in the frequency of use is where the abuse comes in.

/Figures were for illustrative purposes only; feel free to correct me with more accurate numbers.
 
2012-02-28 01:48:52 PM  

Charlie Freak: jjwars1: Chimperror2: jjwars1: The_Six_Fingered_Man: jjwars1: Would you let a cop sit there and watch you in your backyard all day

If the cop can get to a vantage point and see inside my backyard, then he has every right to do so. In fact, there is a very tall public hill behind my house, so any LEO has ample opportunity to do so.

It has nothing to do with me "letting" him sit there. I have no recourse to make him stop.

Yes, you do. You have a right to privacy and peace on your own property. If someone is disturbing your peace and/or invading your privacy through surveillance or peeping tom behavior there is recourse. This is why when a celebrity spots someone displaying such behavior they can get restraining orders and call the police to have them removed. It is not just because they are celebrities that gives them the ability to do this. LEA are not above the law. They have no right to watch you from above, but drones will effectively allow this invasion of privacy.

They already have helicopters. Why do you think drones are any different or worse?

Mainly, the helicopters search for fleeing suspects and take over chases so that innocent people don't get killed in a chase. That's about what drowns will be doing.

Economies of scale will drive down the cost of drones making them widely available unlike helicopters. Drones will be doing a lot more surveillance over anything as opposed to chasing criminals. It makes it much worse, and vastly different. Drones could begin replacing traffic police looking for speeders rather easily, and it would be more cost effective to do so over paying for a cop salary, pension, health care, and other benefits.

You still have to pay someone to fly them, someone else to operate/analyze the sensors, and someone else to maintain them - at least in the near-to-mid future.


Good point. It looks like we just found jobs for all the tech savvy Millennials!
 
2012-02-28 02:01:13 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: jjwars1: I consider anyone sitting outside my home watching me stalker behavior, and there is arguably recourse for that. I also consider someone watching me like that to be disturbing the peace and invading my privacy.

I imagine that you've seen the inside of a courtroom many times, and hardly any of them on the winning side. Honestly, I would love for you to call the police on the police to make a complaint that the first officer is stalking you and invading your privacy for parking his car on a public street that happens to be outside of your house.

I mean, seriously, how do you think they do stakeouts? If there were recourse for that, then no one would be arrested because investigative police could not do their jobs.


I had jury duty for a 3 day trial, and my side won. (HA!) I also testified at court once, and my side won.

LEO does stakeouts when they have reason/cause to. If they have no reason or evidence to investigate you, it is illegal to do so as they would undoubtedly be accessing your records. It is considered an abuse of power. Cops don't and can't just sit there and snoop on you without any reason. Drones would effectively eliminate this as the tech becomes more readily available and affordable. The technology more easily allows for abuse, and you know it will happen. Some perv cop will hover over your wife sun bathing in the back yard, or spy on your children playing in the pool, or just get curious and watch. OR someone will hack the system. It really isn't that crazy to imagine the major abuse of power drone tech allows.
 
2012-02-28 02:05:47 PM  

The Numbers: qorkfiend: jjwars1: Helicopters, satellites, etc can hover over you if they want in order to spy yet it isn't illegal.

So why are we suddenly concerned about drones, if everything that the drones can do can be done already?

Its a question of how these surveillance technologies are administered, and it depends on how you want to look at it.

Let's say that last year, your local police department wanted to use their helicopters for a total of 1000 hours of surveillance. The helicopters are expensive to run (let's say $1000/hr) and the PD surveillance team only has a $500,000 budget, so could only afford 500 hours of surveillance. This meant that:

a) They had to be very selective about when they used surveillance - there had to be a very good reason for it
b) They wanted a cheaper alternative to the helicopters that can meet demand.

Along comes the drones, which do the same thing but are much cheaper (say $100/hr).

Its very easy to present the case in favor of using the drones by saying that they could cover the same amount of surveillance as the helicopters but for just $50,000. That's such a massive saving it would seem stupid not to use them, plus it leaves plenty of money in the budget to cover the other 500 hours of surveillance they couldn't afford. Pretty much a no-brainer.

However, anyone who didn't sleep through government bureaucracy 101 knows that this isn't how things work in the real world. The guy in charge of the PD surveillance team knows that if he just uses the drones to cover the 1000hr demand, he'll still only be spending $100,000. To protect his half mill budget from being cut, he realises he now needs to order 5000 hours of drone surveillance each year, so there's no longer a reason for being selective about when surveillance is used. Instead its used as a general surveillance tool rather than for specific purposes and at the personal whim of any detective rather than on the basis of solid grounds of necessity for a particular operation.

Th ...


A voice of reason. Smart tag thingy for you.
 
2012-02-28 02:25:26 PM  
Terminator 3 predicted this you know.
 
2012-02-29 12:27:30 PM  

jjwars1: I had jury duty for a 3 day trial, and my side won.


This statement confuses me. What's a trial look like when the Jury wins?
 
2012-02-29 04:08:11 PM  

BeesNuts: jjwars1: I had jury duty for a 3 day trial, and my side won.

This statement confuses me. What's a trial look like when the Jury wins?


A poorly explained/delivered overly complex joke. Jury members are supposed to view evidence objectively without taking sides to eliminate bias. If my side won, it means I was rooting for one side to win during the trial without being objective during deliberation. You don't take sides- just deliver a verdict based on evidence...guilty/not guilty.
 
2012-03-01 08:56:30 AM  

jjwars1: BeesNuts: jjwars1: I had jury duty for a 3 day trial, and my side won.

This statement confuses me. What's a trial look like when the Jury wins?

A poorly explained/delivered overly complex joke. Jury members are supposed to view evidence objectively without taking sides to eliminate bias. If my side won, it means I was rooting for one side to win during the trial without being objective during deliberation. You don't take sides- just deliver a verdict based on evidence...guilty/not guilty.


That was a set up for a much better joke about a medical malpractice suit in the field of cosmetic surgery involving unusually perfect breasts.

May I present Exhibit A, and all that. Oh well. Let's have a nice dry conversation about the responsibilities of a juror instead. How do you feel about nullification?
 
Displayed 283 of 283 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report