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.

(Info Wars)   The DHS is not spying on you, those are just innocent little "public safety" drones   (infowars.com) divider line 23
    More: Unlikely, DHS, Paul Joseph Watson, psychological testing, Fort Sill, unmanned aircraft systems, BAE Systems, safety  
•       •       •

723 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Feb 2013 at 7:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-19 07:46:04 AM
Certainly not going to click that... but to be fair, what exactly is different from a drone buzzing around, to a camera on the corner, to a helicopter, to a police cruiser roaming about?
 
2013-02-19 07:50:39 AM
t0.gstatic.com
Time magazine is catching up with Infowars.  Maybe there is hope.
 
2013-02-19 07:52:19 AM
Oooooo... Inforwars.

Pass.
 
2013-02-19 07:52:45 AM

Cinaed: Certainly not going to click that... but to be fair, what exactly is different from a drone buzzing around, to a 1) camera on the corner, to a 2) helicopter, to a 3) police cruiser roaming about?


1) Fixed location
2) Person-powered, less maneuverable, less apt to "jump in the fire"
3) restricted to roads (also person-powered); also, I don't think cruisers have an always-on video camera like drones do

I'm in favor of VERY limited civilian drone use - make it harder to get a drone warrant than a SWAT team, or make the threshhold for drones so high that it's quicker/easier for cops to use a regular warrant. Of course, TPTB want to use drones to fine jaywalkers and litterers, so I'm agin' it.

// damn camel and his nose
 
2013-02-19 07:58:58 AM
NEXT ON INFOWARS: THE GOVERNMENT IS MAKING YOU GAY THROUGH CHEMTRAILS!
 
2013-02-19 08:02:25 AM
Ceiling Drone is watching you masturbate
 
2013-02-19 08:14:33 AM

Cinaed: Certainly not going to click that... but to be fair, what exactly is different from a drone buzzing around, to a camera on the corner, to a helicopter, to a police cruiser roaming about?


I'll just set up a camera that watches every square inch of the outside of your house 24/7. You won't mind will you?

And if you won't mind... There's no hope left for you.
 
2013-02-19 08:21:04 AM

randomjsa: Cinaed: Certainly not going to click that... but to be fair, what exactly is different from a drone buzzing around, to a camera on the corner, to a helicopter, to a police cruiser roaming about?

I'll just set up a camera that watches every square inch of the outside of your house 24/7. You won't mind will you?

And if you won't mind... There's no hope left for you.


So.... you're paparazzi then, eh?  It can already be done  now.  Without issue or recourse.
 
2013-02-19 08:22:09 AM
This would make for an interesting case because aerial views don't typically constitute "searches" under the 4th Amendment, but the amount of technology involved may cause a court to narrow that in this case.
 
2013-02-19 08:27:00 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: Ceiling Drone is watching you masturbate


Computer  Enhanced  Imaging, Loitering, INtelligence Gathering Craft, Anti-Terrorism is watching you masturbate on the visible light, infrared, and millimeter-wave radar bands.
 
2013-02-19 08:33:18 AM
Too late; drones have already been used both in the Alabama hostage incident and to find the cop killer in California. Plus, the Brits have developed a drone that flies high enough to be too small to see from the ground, and has camera resolution good enough to ID individuals walking around.

/they could be up there already and you wouldn't know it
//booga booga booga
 
2013-02-19 08:34:17 AM
UAVs aren't the magic evil police surveilance tool people seem to think they are.  Small ones are loud and hard to fly. They're flimsy and break easily or blow away in a strong wind.

The big ones require FAA approval to compete with commercial air traffic, and are fairly expensive.
 
2013-02-19 09:36:59 AM
were jes keepin' yer' safe and all.
 
2013-02-19 09:41:51 AM
This is one of those things, that while I'll grant my concern may be irrational (gut reaction is not valid proof), really does bother me.  It very much feels like a "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to hide." thing.  Insert safety vs. liberty quotes here and general unresolved pointlessness.

That being said, I found this site a few  months back, and every so often I consider the idea of setting some funds aside to buy one of those portable EMP generators.  Then I consider the issue where I'd have to stand out on watch every day to find a drone and zap it, and realize how unlikely that would be, and I sigh heavily.

Then again, I think it would be fun to have a handful of neighbors get together with me, set up a handful of lava lamp random number generators for positioning and timing, then blast the sky as designated.  You'd likely see us as a headline in FARK a few weeks later as us being some type of domestic terrorists: "lh4.googleusercontent.com Feds add Lava Lamps to gun control bill."

I don't have a real solution just yet.  The closest I've come up with is going off grid, but I like technology, and I get paid from implementing it, so that's not a truly viable alternative.
 
2013-02-19 09:44:30 AM

PanicMan: UAVs aren't the magic evil police surveilance tool people seem to think they are.  Small ones are loud and hard to fly. They're flimsy and break easily or blow away in a strong wind.

The big ones require FAA approval to compete with commercial air traffic, and are fairly expensive.


Yes, one thing the DOD is learning is that the supposed cheapness of UAV's was merely them believing their own bullsh*t, as usual.

Sure you don't have to train and deploy a pilot to fly the thing within a cockpit, and expose them to the risks of flight. But you DO have to deploy a maintenance crew, technical support staff, and admin staff down-range, and keep a flight crew on shift 'round the clock back in the States, along with the home unit. So basically UAV's made it so you don't have to deploy the pilot anymore.

Compounding things is the Air Force insisting commissioned officers be the UAV pilots, and that these pilots have to manually operate the UAV during critical phases of flight (Take offs and landings), meaning USAF drones crash more often than the enlisted-piloted Army ones, whom set the drones to land and take off automatically.

As it turns out, fielding tons of UAVs is very expensive indeed.
 
2013-02-19 09:55:38 AM
My local police have just purchased two drones, presumably to catch all the Casey Anthonys around here.
 
2013-02-19 10:15:22 AM

Dr Dreidel: Cinaed: Certainly not going to click that... but to be fair, what exactly is different from a drone buzzing around, to a 1) camera on the corner, to a 2) helicopter, to a 3) police cruiser roaming about?

1) Fixed location
2) Person-powered, less maneuverable, less apt to "jump in the fire"
3) restricted to roads (also person-powered); also, I don't think cruisers have an always-on video camera like drones do

I'm in favor of VERY limited civilian drone use - make it harder to get a drone warrant than a SWAT team, or make the threshhold for drones so high that it's quicker/easier for cops to use a regular warrant. Of course, TPTB want to use drones to fine jaywalkers and litterers, so I'm agin' it.

// damn camel and his nose


Those three points ARE differences.

What those aspects have to do with search restrictions under the 4th amendment would make for a stronger argument.

And saying surveillance is worse than a swat team?! Wtf man. "it should be harder for them to look at me in public from the sky than it is to break my door down, guns drawn, while throwing flash bangs around."
 
2013-02-19 11:04:10 AM
Public(Sector) Safety is of utmost importance to the Public(Sector).


Also: Corporations(that control the "Public"[Sector])
 
2013-02-19 11:04:52 AM
Government drones with cameras are simply for "routine public safety".

Civilian drones with cameras are for nothing but shameful spying on innocent ladies in their upper-story bedrooms and therefore must be outlawed with draconian punishments. You know, for "public safety".
 
2013-02-19 11:54:52 AM
home.earthlink.net

// Click for flick review.
 
2013-02-19 05:45:21 PM
First of all, stop linking Alex Jones. He's a bona fide nutcase and not a legitimate news source.
Second, the article disproved itself within the first paragraph.
"looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety [matter] or disaster,"
Oh teh noes! They're going to use drones to help disaster victims! Clearly this is an infringement on our rights!
 
2013-02-19 06:24:43 PM

JakeStone: This is one of those things, that while I'll grant my concern may be irrational (gut reaction is not valid proof), really does bother me.  It very much feels like a "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to hide." thing.  Insert safety vs. liberty quotes here and general unresolved pointlessness.

That being said, I found this site a few  months back, and every so often I consider the idea of setting some funds aside to buy one of those portable EMP generators.  Then I consider the issue where I'd have to stand out on watch every day to find a drone and zap it, and realize how unlikely that would be, and I sigh heavily.

Then again, I think it would be fun to have a handful of neighbors get together with me, set up a handful of lava lamp random number generators for positioning and timing, then blast the sky as designated.  You'd likely see us as a headline in FARK a few weeks later as us being some type of domestic terrorists: "[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 54x13] Feds add Lava Lamps to gun control bill."

I don't have a real solution just yet.  The closest I've come up with is going off grid, but I like technology, and I get paid from implementing it, so that's not a truly viable alternative.


I like the way you're thinking. :)
 
2013-02-20 07:52:23 AM
these drones have GPS, right, that records, position, height, and angle of the pictures taken... SOOO WHY DON'T WE ROLL THEIR IMAGES INTO GOOGLE EARTH? from balloons and the bottom of airliners, as well - - that way google earth could be updated well and would cover major airport cities well, too, since commercial jets would always be coming and going to and from. google definitely has the 3d image processing bandwidth available to roll the images down into the gmap, right? create an informatics infrastructure for the US so our commerce / agriculture / etc. can be that much better.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report