Face recongnizing drones shot down in Seattle

[andysayshi]

.
I want to have a drone! Second Amendment says I can.

That might be a flippant comment (or maybe it isn't!) but it is not unrealistic.

You can buy a USAF approved drone for under 900 bucks on eBay today. You can buy a helicopter with high definition cameras on it for under $200.

 

[CowboyBob]

That might be a flippant comment (or maybe it isn't!) but it is not unrealistic.

You can buy a USAF approved drone for under 900 bucks on eBay today. You can buy a helicopter with high definition cameras on it for under $200.

It's actually a radio controlled model of a USAF drone. The drone your link provides is actually $3500 (the $900 is down payment). It's for aerial photography and video production. Besides, I'd be skeptical buying from the seller when he has a low feedback of 2.

 

[andysayshi]

The link wasn't supposed to be a serious "drone", it was simply the first link I found on eBay, and I hoped whimsical.

I'll refer you to the interview with ex-fighter pilot, now drone expert Missy Cummings, on The Daily Show, who says you can simply buy a drone on eBay if you want one. The simple reality is that drone technology is dramatically outpacing the law, especially on an international level. We are rapidly approaching a situation where smaller nations will get much better return spending money on intelligent drone technology than actual man power.

 

[JayHawk]

That is right AndySayshi. Which is why we need a safety net of the damn things. fire with fire and all. We also need to develop an internal policy for use of force regarding drones and then bring it to the UN to enforce on the rest of the world so that we will have legal recourse for wreaking havoc upon the nation that attacks us with a drone.

I personally think the tree huggers need to get a grip. Drones are an efficient, cost effective, 24/7 method of having a presence. Consider that while it was four minutes... still it was four minutes before f-16s were airborne during 9/11. So if you have super sonic drones in the air 24/7 at a fraction of the cost and using three to five ground based pilots... then you have constant capability. You dont need flight physicals for the pilots, you can rely entirely on simulators to train (saving the training fuel we burn now) and they are a fraction of the weight so they are much more efficient.

This drone warfare 'can' we have opened in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in select places around the globe is going to be the story of human rights and wartime success for the next generation.

 

[CowboyBob]

^I'm all for drones. It does the job more efficiently and at a much lower cost in lives and cash. Those against drone warfare because they kill innocents forget that an army invasion also kills civilians and much more of them.

Impersonal?.... who cares! Get rid of the enemy and drones work.

 

[cgymike]

Yes except the enemy is still there isn't it? Kill one two pop up. Oh I don't have a solution and drones may be high level way of minimising terrorist elements but they won't eliminate them.

Now what was it that Pogo said..."We have met....."

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm amazed at the approval in this thread for allowing the government to make war against its own citizens in this country.

Cops are cops. They kill the wrong people, shoot up the vehicles of innocent people, and so on... yet some of you want them to have more power and a bigger reach.

 

[Laufey]

Why is a security camera any worse than a police officer standing at a corner observing?

 

[Jack Springer]

That is right AndySayshi. Which is why we need a safety net of the damn things. fire with fire and all. We also need to develop an internal policy for use of force regarding drones and then bring it to the UN to enforce on the rest of the world so that we will have legal recourse for wreaking havoc upon the nation that attacks us with a drone.

I personally think the tree huggers need to get a grip. Drones are an efficient, cost effective, 24/7 method of having a presence. Consider that while it was four minutes... still it was four minutes before f-16s were airborne during 9/11. So if you have super sonic drones in the air 24/7 at a fraction of the cost and using three to five ground based pilots... then you have constant capability. You dont need flight physicals for the pilots, you can rely entirely on simulators to train (saving the training fuel we burn now) and they are a fraction of the weight so they are much more efficient.

This drone warfare 'can' we have opened in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in select places around the globe is going to be the story of human rights and wartime success for the next generation.

The trouble with the tree huggers they can't see beyond their love of our current President ... they and the media don't question anything.

Drones will be or are in the hands of our enemies. It's an escalation of war beyond the imaginations of many.

 

[seattlerock]

I am from Seattle and I have no idea how I missed this

 

[evanrick]

That is right AndySayshi. Which is why we need a safety net of the damn things. fire with fire and all. We also need to develop an internal policy for use of force regarding drones and then bring it to the UN to enforce on the rest of the world so that we will have legal recourse for wreaking havoc upon the nation that attacks us with a drone.

I personally think the tree huggers need to get a grip. Drones are an efficient, cost effective, 24/7 method of having a presence. Consider that while it was four minutes... still it was four minutes before f-16s were airborne during 9/11. So if you have super sonic drones in the air 24/7 at a fraction of the cost and using three to five ground based pilots... then you have constant capability. You dont need flight physicals for the pilots, you can rely entirely on simulators to train (saving the training fuel we burn now) and they are a fraction of the weight so they are much more efficient.

This drone warfare 'can' we have opened in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in select places around the globe is going to be the story of human rights and wartime success for the next generation.

your a scaremonger.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why is a security camera any worse than a police officer standing at a corner observing?

Because a police officer is visible and thereby somewhat accountable to the public. A flying security camera is an invitation to total disregard for citizen privacy.

your a scaremonger.

No, he's a realist.

 

[Laufey]

Privacy in the home is sacred in my opinion but when you are out in public you can't expect the same.

 

[Kulindahr]

Privacy in the home is sacred in my opinion but when you are out in public you can't expect the same.

That leaves a lot of territory uncovered.

 

[bankside]

That leaves a lot of territory uncovered.

I take your point about accountability and drones or civilian surveillance. But I also accept that police officers can stand in public places and observe wrongdoing and act, while being subject to scrutiny due to their obviousness.

Any ideas on what appropriate scrutiny would look like if drones or cameras were positioned in public places?

 

[Kulindahr]

I take your point about accountability and drones or civilian surveillance. But I also accept that police officers can stand in public places and observe wrongdoing and act, while being subject to scrutiny due to their obviousness.

Any ideas on what appropriate scrutiny would look like if drones or cameras were positioned in public places?

Cameras and drones are two entirely different things. Here's an illustration:

Let's say I inherit a piece of property that's an island in the middle of a river, maybe two hundred acres with beach along the river, woods around the edge, and some ponds amid lawns and cabins inside. Now, the best a camera could do would be sit on the opposite shore and watch people coming and going. But a drone could fly over and, without even informing me, record ever moment of a no-clothes-allowed lawn and pond party where anything goes.

In other words, drones abolish all but indoor privacy, making the meaning of "private property" null except in one's own dwelling -- and not even there, if windows are present.


For proper accountability if we're going to let the police use drones, the drones would have to be large enough to bear the following information in sufficiently sized font to be read from whatever distance the drone is capable of observing from:

* agency name
* drone serial number
* web site for finding drone capability
* officer operating drone, i.e. name, badge number, and photo

Further, since whatever a policeman on foot can see is also visible to the public at large, all images seen using a drone must be streamed online for anyone to watch if they care to -- and the information for finding that must also be on the drone.