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.

(City Pages)   The Onion strikes again. Radio DJ posts photoshop of three drones over Obama's inauguration with "they're obviously scanning the crowd for potential trouble"   (blogs.citypages.com) divider line 82
    More: Dumbass, onions, obama, inauguration  
•       •       •

16558 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2013 at 3:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-24 02:20:11 PM  
literallyunbelievable.org has become one of my favorite sites. It a regular feature in my daily breaktime surf now.
 
2013-01-24 02:48:07 PM  
Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?
 
2013-01-24 02:53:07 PM  

Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?


There were a great deal of African-Americans present at the inauguration, and from a sufficiently high altitude they take on the appearance of shadows on the ground. So the drones have to come down a little lower than normal.
 
2013-01-24 02:59:10 PM  

unlikely: literallyunbelievable.org has become one of my favorite sites. It a regular feature in my daily breaktime surf now.


If YouTube and Freeper comments have taught me anything, there is no shortage of stupid in this country.
 
2013-01-24 03:01:01 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

There were a great deal of African-Americans present at the inauguration, and from a sufficiently high altitude they take on the appearance of shadows on the ground. So the drones have to come down a little lower than normal.


Oh, well. Yeah, of course! That makes perfect sense to me.
 
2013-01-24 03:04:59 PM  
I like his fallback position when he's called on it: why wouldn't you have surveillance drones? It's an efficient use of the technology.

So, terrible, 1984 is here, evil drones when he thought Obama was doing it. Otherwise, why not use them.
 
2013-01-24 03:05:29 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

There were a great deal of African-Americans present at the inauguration, and from a sufficiently high altitude they take on the appearance of shadows on the ground. So the drones have to come down a little lower than normal.


I love you.
 
2013-01-24 03:16:07 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

There were a great deal of African-Americans present at the inauguration, and from a sufficiently high altitude they take on the appearance of shadows on the ground. So the drones have to come down a little lower than normal.


You ALMOST made the "something something African-Americans something something than normal people" comment. Judges take off 5 points. 84/100 clap clap clap
 
2013-01-24 03:16:54 PM  

Radio DJ posts photoshop


I RTFA but this still makes me chuckle.
 
2013-01-24 03:17:50 PM  
Even if this was real. Is the Secret Service deploying a couple of drones to monitor an event the POTUS is attending really a big deal? I mean randomly buzzing them around the country is not cool, but you have an event with Obama, the Chief Justice, and a number of other notables, it's not exactly a big deal.

If it wasn't the drone it would likely be some agents in a borrowed UH-60 with binoculars and a camera pod on the helicopter. At least the drone costs us less in gas.

/if not a UH-60, whatever helicopter they can get their hands on
 
2013-01-24 03:17:54 PM  

unlikely: literallyunbelievable.org


OH MY GOD!
Thank you.
 
2013-01-24 03:18:32 PM  
Blimp drones
Yo 'merikuh - piss off with the Orwellian bullsh*t, eh!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-24 03:19:04 PM  
I doubt it is possible to fly remotely operated drones in such a close formation.
 
2013-01-24 03:19:13 PM  

Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?


Haha PN...

I think the joke was that they were doing a ceremonial flyover, like how some ball games are kicked off with a flyover of some local jets...
 
2013-01-24 03:21:42 PM  
I occasionally work for one of the cable networks here. Couple of years back they sent one of the hosts over to do the USO thing in Afghanistan.

They got the grand tour and were able to get up close to one of those drones. The guy there said that they're around 4 million dollars. 2.1 million of that is just the camera setup. And I'm betting those drones are getting a little long in the tooth too...
 
2013-01-24 03:21:44 PM  

znapel: Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

Haha PN...

I think the joke was that they were doing a ceremonial flyover, like how some ball games are kicked off with a flyover of some local jets...


What a clever way to spy on the populace.
 
2013-01-24 03:21:56 PM  
Can those drones even fly that close in formation like that?
 
2013-01-24 03:21:59 PM  

znapel: Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

Haha PN...

I think the joke was that they were doing a ceremonial flyover, like how some ball games are kicked off with a flyover of some local jets...


Thankfully they didn't drop photo shopped turkeys.
 
2013-01-24 03:23:27 PM  
magicmysticlight.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-24 03:28:09 PM  
twitter and facebook have made everyone your crazy grandma who forwards chain emails.
 
2013-01-24 03:29:36 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?

There were a great deal of African-Americans present at the inauguration, and from a sufficiently high altitude they take on the appearance of shadows on the ground. So the drones have to come down a little lower than normal.


God DAMN that's a good one!
 
2013-01-24 03:30:49 PM  
otherworldmystery.com
 
2013-01-24 03:32:30 PM  
I won't lie--I had to check three times to see it was the Onion when I first saw the story. It's not unbelievable that a President who's used them to such great effect might have a demonstration flyover (not meant to scan for trouble, just for kicks).


/live in a state that will be a test for domestic drone use
//not happy about it, but not "omfg, it's armageddon and Obama is the Antichrist!" either


Mazzic518: Can those drones even fly that close in formation like that?


Short answer: yes. Long answer: depends on the particular type of drone and payload (if any). Here's a vid of a different type of drone doing just that: http://defensetech.org/2012/02/01/creepycool-video-tiny-uavs-flying-i n -formation/ and here's an article stating that, until recently, they could only fly in a formation of up to six: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pentagon-is-quietly-setting-up-fle e ts-of-killer-drones-2012-10 (bit sensational on the headline, IMO, but at least it's not Infowars).
 
2013-01-24 03:34:40 PM  
Well, as long as we don't have Drone Riots...

/readies nerve stapler....
 
2013-01-24 03:35:26 PM  
Funny to read the snark that the DJ unleashed when it was revealed that it was a hoax. "Well, I believed it because it's the kind of thing they might do these days. Watch out people!" Like he did everyone a favor.

I HATE the fact that there is no actual journalism left in the world. News outlets will print absolutely anything that they think will give them an edge over their competitors, only to have to retract it when the actual truth comes out. Walter Cronkite would be spinning in his grave if he saw the depths that the journalistic standard has fallen.
 
2013-01-24 03:36:27 PM  
blogs.citypages.com

Methinks he doesn't understand the 1984 reference
 
2013-01-24 03:37:22 PM  

ChipNASA: [magicmysticlight.files.wordpress.com image 400x300]


ChipNASA: [otherworldmystery.com image 412x283]


fc08.deviantart.net

www.rankopedia.com
 
2013-01-24 03:40:07 PM  

spamky: [blogs.citypages.com image 628x484]

Methinks he doesn't understand the 1984 reference


Methinks he doesn't know what 'fiction' is. Or 'books.'
 
2013-01-24 03:43:01 PM  
Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?

They just got done OKing a bunch of legislation last year to pave the way for drones to fly in the CONTUS. So the picture is fake, but it is only a matter of time before they are flying over head.

The NYPD used a blimp at the GOP convention several years ago to track protestors. I would bet any amount of money they had some form of aerial surveillance at the inauguration.
 
2013-01-24 03:43:30 PM  

ObscureNameHere: Well, as long as we don't have Drone Riots...

/readies nerve stapler....


Play University and get the Secret Project that turns all Network Nodes into Hologram Theaters early on. Then pick up some SPs that add talents later in the game and you'll be fine.
 
2013-01-24 03:45:15 PM  

ha-ha-guy: ObscureNameHere: Well, as long as we don't have Drone Riots...

/readies nerve stapler....

Play University and get the Secret Project that turns all Network Nodes into Hologram Theaters early on. Then pick up some SPs that add talents later in the game and you'll be fine.


Are we talking about video games, or Scientology?
 
2013-01-24 03:49:05 PM  
I don't understand the freak out about drones. Can't you do everything with a normal plane that you can do with a drone?

I don't get this line of thinking:

Oh a plane/satellite can fly above me and photograph what I am doing? Oh ok. not a big deal.

WHAT AN UNMANNED PLANE CAN FLY ABOVE ME AND PHOTOGRAPH WHAT I AM DOING? NOW I AM OUTRAGED!!!

Why does it make any farking difference if someone is inside the plane or not? Is it because it's new technology so people are freaking out?


Same can be said with:

The military can launch a missile from miles away to kill people in buildings? Oh ok.

WHAT THE MILITARY CAN DROP A MISSILE FROM A UNMANNED PLANE TO KILL PEOPLE IN BUILDINGS!!! OMG the Constitution is now in shatters!!!!

What the fark is the difference is we blow people up using missiles from ships, missiles from manned airplanes or missiles from unmanned airplanes. It's the same farking thing.
 
2013-01-24 03:53:21 PM  

Aigoo: I won't lie--I had to check three times to see it was the Onion when I first saw the story. It's not unbelievable that a President who's used them to such great effect might have a demonstration flyover (not meant to scan for trouble, just for kicks).


/live in a state that will be a test for domestic drone use
//not happy about it, but not "omfg, it's armageddon and Obama is the Antichrist!" either


Mazzic518: Can those drones even fly that close in formation like that?

Short answer: yes. Long answer: depends on the particular type of drone and payload (if any). Here's a vid of a different type of drone doing just that: http://defensetech.org/2012/02/01/creepycool-video-tiny-uavs-flying-i n -formation/ and here's an article stating that, until recently, they could only fly in a formation of up to six: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pentagon-is-quietly-setting-up-fle e ts-of-killer-drones-2012-10 (bit sensational on the headline, IMO, but at least it's not Infowars).


Cool t/y ill check those out when i get home
 
2013-01-24 03:53:24 PM  

ha-ha-guy: ObscureNameHere: Well, as long as we don't have Drone Riots...

/readies nerve stapler....

Play University and get the Secret Project that turns all Network Nodes into Hologram Theaters early on. Then pick up some SPs that add talents later in the game and you'll be fine.


It is every citizen's duty to go into the tanks, and become one with all the people.
 
2013-01-24 03:53:37 PM  

kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?


Because they're not allowed to operate in US airspace except around US bases?
 
2013-01-24 03:55:33 PM  
We're living Poe's Law.
 
2013-01-24 03:57:15 PM  

vpb: I doubt it is possible to fly remotely operated drones in such a close formation.


Mazzic518: Can those drones even fly that close in formation like that?


I was watching some PBS thing the other night about drones and what they can and cannot do, waaay intriguing. Anyhow, they had some smaller ones and they were doing some really incredible close in flying, formation and aerobatics. In one sequence they had 9 of these things doing a figure 8 and they has to "sense" where the others were.

Also they talked about the cameras and how they send something like a 1+billion pixel video generated through 186 cameras as they fly. Each camera lenses about the size of one BB. Also showed the full size drone (jet size) that will be doing carrier landings
 
2013-01-24 03:57:41 PM  

kindms: The NYPD used a blimp at the GOP convention several years ago to track protestors.


The Atlanta Police used a Blimp to monitor the 1996 Olympics, nothing new here.

/The blimp actually said Atlanta Police on the side.
 
2013-01-24 04:00:36 PM  
The drones were there to distract the people from seeing the black stealth helicopters !
 
2013-01-24 04:02:52 PM  

TehBoognish: unlikely: literallyunbelievable.org

OH MY GOD!
Thank you.


I don't understand why you would want to regularly infuriate yourself with examples of other people's stupidity. I mean, I like to read Engrish.com too, but at least those are people of a different colour who can't vote.
 
2013-01-24 04:04:01 PM  
FwD: Fwd: fwd:fwd:etc.: IT HAS BEGUN

/gets popcorn out of pantry
 
2013-01-24 04:04:40 PM  

BronyMedic: ChipNASA: [magicmysticlight.files.wordpress.com image 400x300]

ChipNASA: [otherworldmystery.com image 412x283]

[fc08.deviantart.net image 800x1129]

[www.rankopedia.com image 357x450]


THIS one you know about.
This is at least 20 years old.

jeffcity.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com

Can you imagine what we have that we're actively using NOW?

3.bp.blogspot.com

Pegasus.
 
2013-01-24 04:12:59 PM  

ChipNASA: BronyMedic: ChipNASA: [magicmysticlight.files.wordpress.com image 400x300]

ChipNASA: [otherworldmystery.com image 412x283]

[fc08.deviantart.net image 800x1129]

[www.rankopedia.com image 357x450]

THIS one you know about.
This is at least 20 years old.

[jeffcity.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com image 670x1005]

Can you imagine what we have that we're actively using NOW?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x321]

Pegasus.


deziddon.com

They've certainly come a long way.
 
2013-01-24 04:17:30 PM  

Two16: ChipNASA: BronyMedic: ChipNASA: [magicmysticlight.files.wordpress.com image 400x300]

ChipNASA: [otherworldmystery.com image 412x283]

[fc08.deviantart.net image 800x1129]

[www.rankopedia.com image 357x450]

THIS one you know about.
This is at least 20 years old.

[jeffcity.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com image 670x1005]

Can you imagine what we have that we're actively using NOW?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x321]

Pegasus.

[deziddon.com image 608x336]

They've certainly come a long way.


Here's a little something that we did last week that not many folks paid attention....totes real, office is next door to me and is my old boss....
We developed this in the early 2000s from trying to figure out how to robotically service Hubble.


ssco.gsfc.nasa.gov
    ssco.gsfc.nasa.gov

Robotically Refueling Satellites On Orbit. (And other repairs as necessary...when we configure the technology to adapt to the needs of the build.)
 
2013-01-24 04:20:00 PM  

propasaurus: I like his fallback position when he's called on it: why wouldn't you have surveillance drones? It's an efficient use of the technology.

So, terrible, 1984 is here, evil drones when he thought Obama was doing it. Otherwise, why not use them.


Someone please explain to me how police using UAVs to monitor the skies is any scarier than having a police pilot up in a helicopter, monitoring the skies. Are we assuming that all UAVs must be armed? Why not the same assumption for police helicopters and other aircraft? Why is this particular technology so scary?

Answer: drone detractors don't know a thing about them that isn't put up on the internet without citation by some gravelly voiced asshole who has an internet radio show, and they think drones are some sort of Decepticon Terminators or something.
 
2013-01-24 04:27:32 PM  

Corvus: I don't understand the freak out about drones. Can't you do everything with a normal plane that you can do with a drone?

I don't get this line of thinking:

Oh a plane/satellite can fly above me and photograph what I am doing? Oh ok. not a big deal.

WHAT AN UNMANNED PLANE CAN FLY ABOVE ME AND PHOTOGRAPH WHAT I AM DOING? NOW I AM OUTRAGED!!!

Why does it make any farking difference if someone is inside the plane or not? Is it because it's new technology so people are freaking out?


I feel the same way. It's just like a police helicopter, right? I think the real problem is that with a plane, helicopter, blimp, and what have you there is an amount of presence and cost involved. You hear the plane or helicopter, and it costs a lot of money to have this big thing flying around. But, if you have this little drone it sort of goes 'out of sight'. It's not intentionally being hidden, but it's harder to notice and some people think that is deliberate. With their small size, lower operating costs, and longer loiter times more governments (state, local) will have the resources to employ them and use them more.

In the end, it is just a technology. Technology isn't good or bad, it's how you use it that makes it so.
 
2013-01-24 04:27:40 PM  

spamky: [blogs.citypages.com image 628x484]

Methinks he doesn't understand the 1984 reference


I like how he tried to play the "It coulda been real, so I'm not wrong!!!!11!!" card towards the end.
 
2013-01-24 04:28:04 PM  
Did they kill many children?
 
2013-01-24 04:34:42 PM  

Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?


They fly very high and very fast.
 
2013-01-24 04:41:31 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: propasaurus: I like his fallback position when he's called on it: why wouldn't you have surveillance drones? It's an efficient use of the technology.

So, terrible, 1984 is here, evil drones when he thought Obama was doing it. Otherwise, why not use them.

Someone please explain to me how police using UAVs to monitor the skies is any scarier than having a police pilot up in a helicopter, monitoring the skies. Are we assuming that all UAVs must be armed? Why not the same assumption for police helicopters and other aircraft? Why is this particular technology so scary?

Answer: drone detractors don't know a thing about them that isn't put up on the internet without citation by some gravelly voiced asshole who has an internet radio show, and they think drones are some sort of Decepticon Terminators or something.


The difference is simple. MONEY. It costs a lot of money to use aerial surveillance to monitor individuals using planes and helicopters. This was the major deterrent in the abuse of such technology. So removing the cost barriers involved allows for much much more abuse and monitoring. They now can fly a drone almost 24/7 with very little cost and they can monitor entire cities with a single drone. They now want to use this tech to monitor Americans wholesale.

So you keep thinking this isn't any different than a pilot in a noisy helicopter costing thousands to stay in the air over a specific target vs. a drone flying 24/7 watching anything and everything. Yup no difference at all. No way that these things will be abused. Lets leave not even discuss WHY law enforcement thinks they need these etc etc
 
2013-01-24 04:48:31 PM  
Ah, KFAI. The Twin Cities home to royalty-free music and paranoid political ramblings. Laugh. A. Minute.
 
2013-01-24 04:49:52 PM  

kindms: Crotchrocket Slim: propasaurus: I like his fallback position when he's called on it: why wouldn't you have surveillance drones? It's an efficient use of the technology.

So, terrible, 1984 is here, evil drones when he thought Obama was doing it. Otherwise, why not use them.

Someone please explain to me how police using UAVs to monitor the skies is any scarier than having a police pilot up in a helicopter, monitoring the skies. Are we assuming that all UAVs must be armed? Why not the same assumption for police helicopters and other aircraft? Why is this particular technology so scary?

Answer: drone detractors don't know a thing about them that isn't put up on the internet without citation by some gravelly voiced asshole who has an internet radio show, and they think drones are some sort of Decepticon Terminators or something.

The difference is simple. MONEY. It costs a lot of money to use aerial surveillance to monitor individuals using planes and helicopters. This was the major deterrent in the abuse of such technology. So removing the cost barriers involved allows for much much more abuse and monitoring. They now can fly a drone almost 24/7 with very little cost and they can monitor entire cities with a single drone. They now want to use this tech to monitor Americans wholesale.

So you keep thinking this isn't any different than a pilot in a noisy helicopter costing thousands to stay in the air over a specific target vs. a drone flying 24/7 watching anything and everything. Yup no difference at all. No way that these things will be abused. Lets leave not even discuss WHY law enforcement thinks they need these etc etc


You best had STFU about how much money the government spends in general, as otherwise this is a completely hypocritical argument otherwise (not sure if you are one of those people but there are enough around I had to type that).

You realize that everywhere you go in public already has a crapload of closed circuit security cameras accessible to law enforcement? Even if this isn't the case you do not have the reasonable expectation of privacy outside of your home anyway; other private citizens have the right to set up their own security cameras. How is this really a game changer again? It's not if you don't believe human beings act like comic book characters IRL.
 
2013-01-24 04:51:44 PM  
Andy Driscoll, KFAI host, is a giant idiot.
 
2013-01-24 04:51:45 PM  

kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?


While I love laughing at people who mistake Onion articles for reality... kind this.

I know New Orleans tried to order a drone of some sort for the Super Bowl this year.  I guess it was too expensive, so there won't be a drone... but the fact is it was part of the initial plan.
 
2013-01-24 04:56:01 PM  

kindms: So removing the cost barriers involved allows for much much more abuse and monitoring. They now can fly a drone almost 24/7 with very little cost and they can monitor entire cities with a single drone. They now want to use this tech to monitor Americans wholesale.


But they can only monitor you in public.  There's no amount of public monitoring that really can be considered "abusive".
 
2013-01-24 04:57:36 PM  

downstairs: kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?

While I love laughing at people who mistake Onion articles for reality... kind this.

I know New Orleans tried to order a drone of some sort for the Super Bowl this year.  I guess it was too expensive, so there won't be a drone... but the fact is it was part of the initial plan.


Kind of makes a big part of kindms's response to me... pathetic and utterly unrealistic. Not helping your "cause" there by being as misinformed etc. as I had written you all off as earlier....
 
2013-01-24 05:17:47 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: downstairs: kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?

While I love laughing at people who mistake Onion articles for reality... kind this.

I know New Orleans tried to order a drone of some sort for the Super Bowl this year.  I guess it was too expensive, so there won't be a drone... but the fact is it was part of the initial plan.

Kind of makes a big part of kindms's response to me... pathetic and utterly unrealistic. Not helping your "cause" there by being as misinformed etc. as I had written you all off as earlier....


Well, all I can tell you is what I heard around town.  Maybe I'm wrong on the reason why they eventually didn't get a drone.  My point only was that its something that is *possible* for large public events, and doesn't seem to crazy to me.
 
2013-01-24 05:26:24 PM  

BronyMedic: ha-ha-guy: ObscureNameHere: Well, as long as we don't have Drone Riots...

/readies nerve stapler....

Play University and get the Secret Project that turns all Network Nodes into Hologram Theaters early on. Then pick up some SPs that add talents later in the game and you'll be fine.

Are we talking about video games, or Scientology?


Some games are so bad, you wonder if they weren't scripted by Hubbard...
 
2013-01-24 05:28:19 PM  

waterrockets: kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?

Because they're not allowed to operate in US airspace except around US bases?


Incorrect. Several states have passed legislation allowing them to be tested for CONUS use.
 
2013-01-24 05:34:55 PM  
Man, I love the Onion!!

So many great laughs...
 
2013-01-24 05:38:18 PM  

waterrockets: kindms: Why is it so crazy to think they would be flying drones over the inauguration ?

Because they're not allowed to operate in US airspace except around US bases?


DC is close to bases. ...swing a dead cat... and all that
 
2013-01-24 05:39:30 PM  

vpb: I doubt it is possible to fly remotely operated drones in such a close formation.


It may be impossible now, but soon won't be.

There was a great NOVA on last night where it showed how they are working on "fleets" of drones who can fly together - using technology to keep them a minimum distance apart from each other. I think you can catch the show here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html

Amazing shiat...
 
2013-01-24 05:40:48 PM  
Too fast on the button...

While several states currently only allow them to be used in the vicinity of military posts/bases (such as my own state of Oklahoma, which currently restricts the testing to the Elgin area), the fact that law enforcement agencies and large events (such as the aforementioned Superbowl) are already including them in their plans (even if they end up scrapping it due to cost) should be of some concern.

To get you started on educating yourself, I'll just leave these right here:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/23/docs-law-enforcement- ag encies-plan-to-use-domestic-drones-for-surveillance

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Law-Enforcement-Agenci es -Test-Drones-173415551.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/california-law-enforcemen t- move-to-buy-drones-draw-controversy/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/homeland-security-in cr easingly-loaning-drones-to-l/

http://www.pnj.com/viewart/20130116/NEWS02/301160033/Panel-votes-ban -s pying-drones

http://rt.com/usa/news/missouri-drone-surveillance-us-579/

https://www.eff.org/foia/faa-drone-authorizations

So, I'm sorry. About domestic drones only being permitted in airspace surrounding military installations... you were saying?


/over 5 million results on Google, covering several states' law enforcement agencies use of, or efforts to obtain drones for domestic surveillance.
//several of those entries cover states' legislation to ban the practice.
///happy reading!
 
2013-01-24 05:47:33 PM  

vpb: I doubt it is possible to fly remotely operated drones in such a close formation.


A better question is why would you want to?
 
2013-01-24 05:53:14 PM  

fusillade762: vpb: I doubt it is possible to fly remotely operated drones in such a close formation.

A better question is why would you want to?



upload.wikimedia.org

Showboating. Why else?
 
2013-01-24 05:56:05 PM  
Is there a law similar to Poe's Law, where the derpier someone gets the less they are able to distinguish between parody and reality?
 
2013-01-24 06:00:08 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Is there a law similar to Poe's Law, where the derpier someone gets the less they are able to distinguish between parody and reality?


Not sure. Maybe derpiness has something to do with cognitive ability?
 
2013-01-24 06:02:08 PM  

Aigoo: Too fast on the button...

While several states currently only allow them to be used in the vicinity of military posts/bases (such as my own state of Oklahoma, which currently restricts the testing to the Elgin area), the fact that law enforcement agencies and large events (such as the aforementioned Superbowl) are already including them in their plans (even if they end up scrapping it due to cost) should be of some concern.

To get you started on educating yourself, I'll just leave these right here:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/23/docs-law-enforcement- ag encies-plan-to-use-domestic-drones-for-surveillance

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Law-Enforcement-Agenci es -Test-Drones-173415551.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/california-law-enforcemen t- move-to-buy-drones-draw-controversy/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/homeland-security-in cr easingly-loaning-drones-to-l/

http://www.pnj.com/viewart/20130116/NEWS02/301160033/Panel-votes-ban -s pying-drones

http://rt.com/usa/news/missouri-drone-surveillance-us-579/

https://www.eff.org/foia/faa-drone-authorizations

So, I'm sorry. About domestic drones only being permitted in airspace surrounding military installations... you were saying?


/over 5 million results on Google, covering several states' law enforcement agencies use of, or efforts to obtain drones for domestic surveillance.
//several of those entries cover states' legislation to ban the practice.
///happy reading!


Soon enough the same (unarmed) technology is going to be available at the consumer level, albeit probably on the quadrotor platform. Drones everywhere!

I mean, hell, if you had shown this to me 10-20 years ago:
i01.i.aliimg.com

I would have been blown away. Especially when you told me it only costs 30 bucks.
 
2013-01-24 06:13:34 PM  
God damn I love when someone gets duped, then doubles down on the reasoning.
 
2013-01-24 06:15:08 PM  

Cythraul: Why would a drone fly so low over its target as to be seen by the naked eye? Isn't their nominal operational altitude like, waaaay, waaaay high up?


Second post in and someone's talking facts already?

Face it, there are a great number of people out there who are so dumb they fall for this shiat. They fall for it because they don't know anything (like how UAVs operate). And since they don't know anything, they just make shiat up.
 
2013-01-24 06:29:23 PM  

unlikely: literallyunbelievable.org has become one of my favorite sites. It a regular feature in my daily breaktime surf now.


Thanks for that. Now I can't stop reading it. Holy crap.
 
2013-01-24 06:31:55 PM  

Zeno-25: I would have been blown away. Especially when you told me it only costs 30 bucks.


symas032.info

That's awesome.
 
2013-01-24 06:53:20 PM  
I just used that article to troll a Tea Party-type nut. Worked like a charm with hilarious results, I suggest everyone do the same.
 
2013-01-24 06:59:36 PM  
I like this logic: "The burden of proof for factual and researched content falls to everyone".

So whose fault is it that he was a massive idiot and posted fake pictures as news? IT'S ALL OF OUR FAULT!!! Not his! It's YOUR fault! It's MY fault! We're ALL equally responsible! I'm so, so sorry! *Sob*
 
2013-01-24 07:42:55 PM  

Stig O'Tracy: Funny to read the snark that the DJ unleashed when it was revealed that it was a hoax. "Well, I believed it because it's the kind of thing they might do these days. Watch out people!" Like he did everyone a favor.

I HATE the fact that there is no actual journalism left in the world. News outlets will print absolutely anything that they think will give them an edge over their competitors, only to have to retract it when the actual truth comes out. Walter Cronkite would be spinning in his grave if he saw the depths that the journalistic standard has fallen.


I HATE the fact that people can't tell the difference between Facebook and news outlets.
 
2013-01-24 07:56:10 PM  

Aigoo: Too fast on the button...

While several states currently only allow them to be used in the vicinity of military posts/bases (such as my own state of Oklahoma, which currently restricts the testing to the Elgin area), the fact that law enforcement agencies and large events (such as the aforementioned Superbowl) are already including them in their plans (even if they end up scrapping it due to cost) should be of some concern.

To get you started on educating yourself, I'll just leave these right here:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/23/docs-law-enforcement- ag encies-plan-to-use-domestic-drones-for-surveillance

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Law-Enforcement-Agenci es -Test-Drones-173415551.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/california-law-enforcemen t- move-to-buy-drones-draw-controversy/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/homeland-security-in cr easingly-loaning-drones-to-l/

http://www.pnj.com/viewart/20130116/NEWS02/301160033/Panel-votes-ban -s pying-drones

http://rt.com/usa/news/missouri-drone-surveillance-us-579/

https://www.eff.org/foia/faa-drone-authorizations

So, I'm sorry. About domestic drones only being permitted in airspace surrounding military installations... you were saying?


/over 5 million results on Google, covering several states' law enforcement agencies use of, or efforts to obtain drones for domestic surveillance.
//several of those entries cover states' legislation to ban the practice.
///happy reading!


Oh noes being observed in public where I don't have any expectation of privacy THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

You put more info out about yourself that is available to the NSA when you logged into Fark today than what hours of being tailed by a drone could ever produce.

Technologically ignorant people are goddamn insufferable. If you're going to piss yourself about the tools the government is using at least have a more realistic reason to piss yourself.
 
2013-01-24 10:35:17 PM  
From his response on learnng it was a shoop: But, we do, in fact, live in a country where easily 50% or more of everything we're told is believed, often because it sounds "official". There may be no completely "reliable" sources for our news. But it's often what we're NOT told that determines where the truth lies.

Did anyone from the White House deny that there was a formation flyover of drones monitored from a secret site in Las Vegas?

/I'm guessing the high-roller room at the Flamingo. Nobody goes in there.
 
2013-01-25 12:16:30 AM  
Literally unbelievable

A website dedicated to people on facebook, Twitter etc. falling hook, line and sinker for Onion articles, and just being completely appaled and shocked.

It's a really good timekiller, and it is updated regularly.

24.media.tumblr.com

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-25 12:50:31 AM  
... and yet they failed to strafe the podium.

Stupid drones.
 
2013-01-25 02:09:01 AM  
Ooh! Look how edgy you are!
 
2013-01-25 03:06:51 AM  

Aigoo: I won't lie--I had to check three times to see it was the Onion when I first saw the story. It's not unbelievable that a President who's used them to such great effect might have a demonstration flyover (not meant to scan for trouble, just for kicks).


/live in a state that will be a test for domestic drone use
//not happy about it, but not "omfg, it's armageddon and Obama is the Antichrist!" either


Mazzic518: Can those drones even fly that close in formation like that?

Short answer: yes. Long answer: depends on the particular type of drone and payload (if any). Here's a vid of a different type of drone doing just that: http://defensetech.org/2012/02/01/creepycool-video-tiny-uavs-flying-i n -formation/ and here's an article stating that, until recently, they could only fly in a formation of up to six: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pentagon-is-quietly-setting-up-fle e ts-of-killer-drones-2012-10 (bit sensational on the headline, IMO, but at least it's not Infowars).


I've only seen those indoors.
 
2013-01-25 10:24:10 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: ... and yet they failed to strafe the podium.

Stupid drones.


0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
Displayed 82 of 82 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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