Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Commercial Drones Taking To the Skies

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the crowdsourced-erosion-of-privacy dept.

Privacy 148

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from the NY Times: "A new federal law, signed by the president on Tuesday, compels the Federal Aviation Administration to allow drones to be used for all sorts of commercial endeavors — from selling real estate and dusting crops, to monitoring oil spills and wildlife, even shooting Hollywood films. Local police and emergency services will also be freer to send up their own drones. But while businesses, and drone manufacturers especially, are celebrating the opening of the skies to these unmanned aerial vehicles, the law raises new worries about how much detail the drones will capture about lives down below — and what will be done with that information. Safety concerns like midair collisions and property damage on the ground are also an issue."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well the government spies on you anyway. (2)

stevenh2 (1853442) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087053)

The government can spy on you without all those drones. They have planes

Re:Well the government spies on you anyway. (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087269)

How many? Enough to cover everywhere at the same time?

My concern is that a private corporation might mass produce drones to take pictures and identify objects and build a huge search engine for it. Or perhaps just add the data to a massive database they have already.

Government could just access that as well as a ton of other people that don't really have your best interests at heart.

Re:Well the government spies on you anyway. (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087281)

My concern is that a private corporation might mass produce drones to take pictures and identify objects and build a huge search engine for it. Or perhaps just add the data to a massive database they have already.

Google Earth Street view 2.0? (not just restricted to ground level)

Re:Well the government spies on you anyway. (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087417)

A huge searchable database of images from all over the world? That would be awesome!

What exactly are you worried about, specifically? What are these drones going to see you doing that you're so afraid of them? Can you come up with a realistic example?

Re:Well the government spies on you anyway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087467)

Not how it works. The victims of the spying do not need to justify why they should not be spied upon. That burden of proof is on those who wish to spy.

Re:Well the government spies on you anyway. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087863)

Yeah, it would be super awesome! Just imagine all the possibilities for stalking ex-girlfriends! And if women don't want to be watched everywhere they go then they shouldn't break up with me, so it's really their own fault.

Re:Well the government spies on you anyway. (2)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088261)

Privacy is a self-validating principal.

The "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care" line of reasoning, is the primary tool of tyrants, and how can you be sure you have nothing to hide from that type? Depending on their whims, the time of day you go to bed may be a black mark.

Re:Well the government spies on you anyway. (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088365)

Privacy is a self-validating principal.

The "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care" line of reasoning, is the primary tool of tyrants, and how can you be sure you have nothing to hide from that type? Depending on their whims, the time of day you go to bed may be a black mark.

Principals tend to be self validating. Principles OTOH not so much.

Re:Well the government spies on you anyway. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087963)

They don't need government spies... just "commercial contractors" who act on the government's behalf. If we learned anything from the wars in the middle east, it's that contractors can do and get away with things that "soldiers" can't. And what we learned from the warrantless wiretapping crap is that data collection by contractors doesn't need a warrant and will be given retroactive immunity if they are sued for their activities.

Thanks Obama! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087069)

Yeah yeah Obama nuthuggers, something about BOOOOOSH or something right?

Directions please... (4, Interesting)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087085)

Can anyone point me to a good EMP-type device that might work agains these things? I know the cops were experimenting with such a device to stop automobiles in their tracks.

Re:Directions please... (1, Funny)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087141)

Given the current political climate, do you REALLY think that is a wise avenue to be pursuing in 'public'?. O i see by your username that you have no common sense, continue

Re:Directions please... (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088433)

Very good!

Of course if I get tossed in the slammer for asking a rhetorical question* I don't get to pay off student loans, my mortgage, my property taxes and I'll get three squares and free healthcare for life. Sounds like I win.

* EVERY question I ask is a rhetorical question. I Love Big Brother.

Just need a Shotgun (3, Informative)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087147)

Really... it's already been done. [telepresenceoptions.com]

ROFLMAO!

The SHoot Down (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087201)

AAAhhhhahahahahahah! [thetandd.com]

Re:Just need a Shotgun (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087301)

Talk about a bad fucking shot. If I were the man behind the trigger I would never show my face again. The copter was several times the size of a clay pigeon, moving very slowly, and it took - what - 6 shots to nick the thing. Now it sounded like he was using a rifle, not a shotgun, which makes it a bit more challenging (why did you bring a rifle to a shotgun fight anyway?). Piss poor marksmanship, imho.

Re:Just need a Shotgun (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087319)

Funny none-the-less. :-)

Re:Just need a Shotgun (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087389)

What's funny is that a group of animal rights activists got a bunch of gun wielding hunters to tuck their tail and run away.

Re:Just need a Shotgun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087441)

only thing i see is trees and a drone geting plinked at with a 22 i dont see any running

just a bunch of dumbass's saying did it get shot after 6 gunshots and thing floping to ground

Re:Just need a Shotgun (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087453)

RTFA, I know that's hard for an AC.

Re:Just need a Shotgun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087541)

if someone shoots down a drone and sticks around to get sued or buged by animal rights people there stupid if someone knocks one out of sky they should leave and watch it on youtube
  box of 22's cost 1.25$ drone damage 300$ fled the scene on small motorized vehicles lol they call them atv's and people do ride them around in woods not realy fleeing lol

Re:Just need a Shotgun (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087551)

My point was that they managed to get the hunters to abandon their scheduled event, aka run away. Am I supposed to be impressed that some coward retaliated with property damage? The activists won that round. As I said, RTFA.....

Re:Just need a Shotgun (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087469)

On the one hand, extreme animal rights groups like this one tend to be really obnoxious and a tad crazy. On the other, shooting at an elevated target in the direction of a populated area? That is extremely dangerous, and the people who would be at an event like that surely knew it. They risked harming or killing another human being because they were angry.

Gun owners always claim that guns are safe as long as the people using them know what they're doing and follow best practices. These guys should be ashamed of themselves.

Re:Just need a Shotgun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087531)

So wait, on the one hand you are okay with unregulated use of spying drones, but on the other hand you want more restrictions on guns?

I see where this is going. You don't actually give a shit about individual rights. Second, fourth, or fifth amendments are really just white noise to you.

Re:Just need a Shotgun (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087569)

The activists were well within their rights as well. The only people who broke the law here was the person damaging property that didn't belong to them. Who doesn't give a shit about individual rights in this situation?

Re:Just need a Shotgun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087633)

What about the trespassing that the activists committed by flying over private property?

You aren't even trying to apply any consistent philosophy. Grow up, come back when you are ready to be rational.

Re:Just need a Shotgun (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087707)

RTFA. They weren't trespassing. The local cop was even there. How about you grow the fuck up.

Re:Just need a Shotgun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087779)

Just because the local cop was there doesn't mean they were trespassing.

Newsflash: Just because you have the right to overfly something at 30,000 feet doesn't mean you have the right to buzz around someone's yard at 25 feet. Property rights do not end one inch above the surface.

You have quite a bit of nerve telling others to grow up.

Re:Just need a Shotgun (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087797)

Seriously READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE. They did not fly over the property. The thing was shot down over a highway. Yes, the shooter shot at a drone helicopter over a highway. You really do need to grow the fuck up.

Re:Just need a Shotgun (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087655)

I said no such thing. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.

What these guys did was not responsible.

Shooters "fled scene on small motorized vehicles" (1)

Dast (10275) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088485)

Regardless what you think about the group who were launching the drone, I think we can all agree that our first reaction to seeing the ugly thing would be to shoot first and ask questions later. Years of first person shooter games with enemies that fly around have permanently implanted the reaction into my brain.

And then the drone shooters "fled scene on small motorized vehicles". Weird, but awesome.

Re:Directions please... (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087209)

Ah, Slashdot. The world's only technology site populated by Luddites.

Newsflash, buddy... The people you're so terrified of already have helicopters. What's wrong with making flight cheaper and more accessible?

Re:Directions please... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087289)

I am not afrad of machines, but are very afraid of the (layers of) humans behind them. A noisy, isolated, with visible identification and visible helicopter is no match for a swarm of drones, remotely controlled by who knows how much people, and with "requisites".

Re:Directions please... (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087397)

Why?

The people controlling these things are just people. They are no different from your friends, your relatives, your neighbors, or any random joe you meet on the street. They aren't out to get you.

If there are particular government policies that bother you (e.g. the war on drugs), then that's a valid concern and something that you should fight against through votes, activism, etc. But saying that technology shouldn't advance because you think that there's some shadowy conspiracy the members of which are only kept from harming you because they lack the necessary tech... I'm sorry, but that's a Luddite's view, and probably comes from reading too many dystopian fantasies.

Technology will keep marching forward. Always. If the laws bother you, fight to change the laws. But don't blame the tools.

Re:Directions please... (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087983)

Why?

The people controlling these things are just people. They are no different from your friends, your relatives, your neighbors, or any random joe you meet on the street. They aren't out to get you.

Poor argument IMHO, because groups of people exhibit emergent behaviors - behaviors which any single member on their own would not show. Take any large-scale abomination committed in human history, and the people involved were always no different to friends, neighbors, relatives, etc. This is no guarantee that they won't do terrible and stupid things.

Re:Directions please... (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088213)

They aren't your friends, they are members of a privileged unit that obeys a handful of people up the command pyramid who might as well be aliens from another planet. Yes, technology progresses, but when government starts developing mass pacification equipment or researches formulations for large-scale gas chambers the goal should be blocking acquisition, suggesting make-believe legal limitations on deployment.

Re:Directions please... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088513)

Weapons don't kill people, the people handling them does. Sometimes could be one friend, or relative, or random joe, that ends kill someone because is not aware of the full consequences (is just pressing a trigger, not actually hitting with their fist to someone), or because the people that picked him to handle that weapon did it because is not someone afraid to use it against other people, or just by mistake.

Now replace weapons with drones, and kill with whatever you could do with one of those drones, including kill. And regarding people handling them, you put all the layers, from politicians and ceos, makers, software designers, hackers that managed to control them or plant something offline (remember stuxnet), and at the end the final user managing it while eating a donut. Is not like we don't have culture on what could be wrong in all those places, 2001, robocop, and the simpsons are just a few examples of what people can do to make all go wrong.

Re:Directions please... (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087491)

Ah, Slashdot. The world's only technology site populated by Luddites.

Newsflash, buddy... The people you're so terrified of already have helicopters. What's wrong with making flight cheaper and more accessible?

Might not the availability of private drones lead to a business of providing service to those pestered by drones?
Celebrity weddings and events might become plagued by Paparazzi drones, but some company will also rush in to provide blocker drones to block the shots or accidentally dangle "antennas" into rotors, or just take them out via collision.

A cloud of security drones around a site would probably discourage other drones as well.

I'm not sure the whole idea here is "making flight cheaper and more accessible".
Accessible to who?

Farmers? Maybe.
Forestry? Maybe.
Pipeline survey? Maybe.
News Media? Perhaps.
City dweller? ah, No, don't be foolish.
Suburban Citizen? No.
Joe RC Enthusiast? Not really. Too expensive, and already goverened.

By Accessible, you can only mean the Police in this day and age.

Re:Directions please... (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087529)

I know reading it hard, but try to at least get through the first sentence of the summary.

A new federal law, signed by the president on Tuesday, compels the Federal Aviation Administration to allow drones to be used for all sorts of commercial endeavors

They are required, by law, to allow drone use by commercial endeavors. So no, it's not just "accessible for the police" as you claim. This law does the exact opposite of what you claim, by making it so that the drones aren't just "accessible for the police".

Re:Directions please... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087787)

So clueless. So naive.

Re:Directions please... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087593)

Try to RTFA. The first thing they mention is a small business owner that was using a drone to take pictures of property for a real estate agent... He can now do his job legally.

Re:Directions please... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087733)

As well as case the joint for anyone else that pays them.

Have you noticed any problem Real Estate agents encounter when getting pictures for a building they want to sell? Seems the sellers are only too happy to provide inside and outside shots.

This is a totally bogus use case, drummed up to make the whole thing look innocuous.

Re:Directions please... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087829)

Sure thing.

Re:Directions please... (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087539)

Ah, Slashdot. The world's only technology site populated by Luddites.

Newsflash, buddy... The people you're so terrified of already have helicopters. What's wrong with making flight cheaper and more accessible?

Cheaper and more accessible makes all the difference. What's the difference between a world where handguns cost $50,000 each and a world where handguns cost $25 & up? Both worlds will have handguns, but the distribution and usage patterns will be very different.

You can buy a whole drone system for the cost of operating a small helicopter for a few weeks.

Re:Directions please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087881)

Ah, Slashdot. The world's only technology site populated by Luddites.

Newsflash, buddy... The people you're so terrified of already have helicopters. What's wrong with making flight cheaper and more accessible?

The fact that there will be WAY more of them, when you take away the expensive human pilot. Also, without a pilot, there will be one less person whose objection you will have to deal with when trying to do whatever nefarious thing you want to do.

Re:Directions please... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088023)

Oh that's a very bad line of thinking. When tech makes something cheaper and easier you definitely should re-examine the rules.

Re:Directions please... (1)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087241)

nah... just start a company that makes killer-drones. "drones to kill their drones" ...drone-wars!

Re:Directions please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087327)

why shoot it down, all you need to do is blind it.

How hard would it be to stick together a webcam, dvd-laser and a motion detection script? But, why bother with lasers anyway? I saw a video some time ago where a guy was using some infrared LED's to blind street cameras.

Put a few of these on your license plate, around your home, office window.

Re:Directions please... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087425)

EMP is the wrong way to go - bulky power supplies, collateral damage and the fact that you're gonna look stupid pointing that thing all around the neighborhood. People might talk.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a combination new age rocketry and some easy electronics. I should think it possible to actually control an Estes type rocket with tiny piezoelectric motors controlling minature flaps, enough to guide the rocket to a target. Use thermal or ultrasonic guidance and you have yourself a tiny little Stinger.

Either that or take up Falconry. I saw an Eagle (the feathered kind) take out a noisy RC helicopter once. Missed some great photos by a couple of seconds. The drones are pretty fragile - shouldn't take too much to knock them down.

no But I can point to the prisons you can end up (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087429)

no But I can point to the prisons you can end up in just for thinning that way.

Re:Directions please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088029)

I think an RC plane mounted with thin wires/netting hanging off the back to tangle the rotors of the spy drones would be much more fun!

Re:Directions please... (1)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088435)

RF emissions like that are illegal... the FCC will be happy to confiscate your equipment, especially when the last thing seen is you aiming an EMP cannon at them. They'd probably somehow pin a terrorist plot on you for protecting privacy, too. Where I live, I could legally use the shotgun suggestion, however.

But actually, it's not that difficult to blind a camera. A high power laser would also do it but would be obvious where it originated. While visible light cameras have IR/UV shields, an IR laser could probably destroy the camera with heat.

Re:Directions please... (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088437)

Why make it complicated? A good rifle should take it out just fine....

Re:Directions please... (1)

Dee Ann_1 (1731324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088503)

Microwave oven, magnetron, HERF.

I for once, welcome our ...nevermind (3, Interesting)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087115)

I really don't want to go trough that old SD cliche...I for once, welcome...blahblah ;)

Anyway, I'm actually for these drones, especially since I'm an avid hobbyist builder of all things robotic, so it's natural that it'd be okay to manufacture these as well and allow them to be used for useful purposes.

Maybe this will be spearheading our future with flying vehicles, Müeller and his infamous sky-car didn't get off the ground due to technical issues, maybe due to MAKERS everywhere, we'll now get rid of the final safety bugs in the designs, and make headway for the very real thing.

Re:I for once, welcome our ...nevermind (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087505)

Define useful purposes.
Do so in such a way that your neighbor's rights to privacy, peace and quiet, and safety are not violated by your selfish definition of useful.

Re:I for once, welcome our ...nevermind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088463)

I'm actually for these drones, especially since I'm an avid hobbyist builder of all things robotic

What makes you think you'll be allowed to use drones?

Personal use? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087125)

Does the regulation allow for personal private use? Or are the rules tied under recreational RC planes?

Re:Personal use? (1)

3dr (169908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087533)

There are rules for RC aircraft that boil down to keeping within line of sight, and under 400ft agl. The article mentions the 400ft altitude limit.

The growing disagreements between drone enthusiasts and entities such as the FAA and LA's motion picture unions stem from the commercial use of hobby-grade drones to film real estate, agricultural lands, etc. LA's movie unions don't want small operations filming real estate because they believe that if there's any filming around Hollywood, they better damn well get it. That's why LAPD is involved: the unions pushed for the city ordinance.

For individuals, the policy is simply keep it within sight and under 400ft.

If you go outside, there will be a record of it. (4, Insightful)

Sgs-Cruz (526085) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087127)

While the commercial uses of these UAVs are cool (hunting feral pigs tearing up your crops using an IR camera on a drone and then radioing the location to your brother with a shotgun! That would be something that only a few militaries in the world could do a decade ago...) the real impact is going to be on the complete loss of privacy for just being anywhere outside in public.

I've long thought that the ease by which something can be obtained really does matter. I mean, things like divorce records have always been "public", but for most of history, that meant going to the city offices and having some surly clerk find the records for you in a basement filing cabinet. Which meant that strictly speaking, they were public, but in practice most people would never go to that trouble. With online records, finding out juicy details about your neighbour's divorce can be as easy as clicking a link. So the change in ease of obtaining records really does change the meaning of "public", even if it doesn't change the definition in a strictly legal sense.

It's the same thing with being outside. The advent of huge networks of computerized cameras on the street, on business fronts, and now perhaps on ubiquitous flying unmanned vehicles... it means that while you had no expectation of privacy in public before, in practice it meant that you could generally go places without anybody knowing about it, as long as you didn't just happen to run into somebody that knows you. Before long, an unblinking computer eye will see you everywhere. The idea of going somewhere without anybody knowing about it will be a thing of the past.

Now, is this, overall, a good thing? That I'm not sure about. Good and bad sides to it, I guess. (I'll be very interested to see its impact on strip clubs and massage parlours, though! Especially if divorce lawyers can subpoena the records.)

Re:If you go outside, there will be a record of it (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087243)

you are asking questions and taking the time to wonder, a bit, before taking steps.

BRAVO.

I wish those in control would do the same.

but we don't. we see that something is *possible* and without any serious thought about implications short and long term, we plow ahead.

I wish more people were a bit more like you and they'd test these new privacy invading technologies before just assuming that the gains outweighs the downsides.

when it comes to privacy, I'm usually in favor of NOT proceeding ahead with some new tech. quite often, these are one-way trips and you can't ever go back if you made a really bad choice or direction.

I fear this is one of those times.

Re:If you go outside, there will be a record of it (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087335)

Several states have sealed driving records to the point it's near impossible to get a name and address from a license plate. Other records will eventually be sealed in such a way as to protect the name and address of people for such life changes as birth, divorce, accident etal.

Eventually those drones will come under such restrictions. I will support prohibitions against non government use of those and strong prohibitions against use of those without a warrant.

Re:If you go outside, there will be a record of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087385)

the real impact is going to be on the complete loss of privacy for just being anywhere outside in public.

You expect privacy when in public?

Re:If you go outside, there will be a record of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088155)

I'll be very interested to see its impact on strip clubs and massage parlours, though! Especially if divorce lawyers can subpoena the records.

Impact? None. Without drones, there's nothing to stop ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE from parking a car out front of either of these places with cameras in them pointed at the front doors of these businesses, filming everyone going in and out, which includes knowing the duration each person spent inside. The technology to do this has existed since the early 1900's. The reason it hasn't been much of a problem since then, before drones, is the same reason it won't be in the age of drones. Nobody frickin' cares that much if you're going to go look at some titties, or get your crank turned. If they did, they'd simply see to it the business in question are shut down.

Truth is, these businesses are "tolerated" because those people who abhor them publicly, decrying their immoral existence, USE them themselves when they hope no one is looking.

Thanks again Obama! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087159)

First you can murder drone me anywhere in the world, now this.

Hope and Change!

Drones in South Carolina (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087167)

Re:Drones in South Carolina (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087267)

You'd think they'd be better shots - that thing wasn't moving nearly as fast as a clay pigeon.

Of course, I was quite disappointed in the video - they really needed to keep a better zoom/focus on the copter. Also, with the camera on board, I would have expected some video of the shooter's position. Overall a lackluster confrontation.

Re:Drones in South Carolina (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087415)

It doesn't take a marksman to hunt pigeons that were raised in a cage, which is what this event was. Those types of guys aren't good enough to hit a clay pigeon.

Re:Drones in South Carolina (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087835)

You'd think they'd be better shots - that thing wasn't moving nearly as fast as a clay pigeon.

I think it was shot down with a rifle not a shotgun. You don't shoot clay pigeons with a rifle.

Their Media is Your Prison - "Oh beehave!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087173)

Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes [imdb.com] [imdb.com]

âoeJohn Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, thatâ(TM)s power. â

âoeThe United States has itâ(TM)s own propaganda, but itâ(TM)s very effective because people donâ(TM)t realize that itâ(TM)s propaganda. And itâ(TM)s subtle, but itâ(TM)s actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but itâ(TM)s funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, itâ(TM)s funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesnâ(TM)t necessarily mean it really serves peopleâ(TM)s thinking â" it can stupify and make not very good things happen.â
â" Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio [imdb.com] [imdb.com]

âoeWeâ(TM)ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.â â" William Casey, CIA Director

âoeItâ(TM)s only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because thatâ(TM)s what people do. They conspire. If you canâ(TM)t get the message, get the man.â â" Mel Gibson

[1967] Jim Garrison Interview âoeIn a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you canâ(TM)t spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You canâ(TM)t look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they wonâ(TM)t be there. We wonâ(TM)t build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. Weâ(TM)re not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isnâ(TM)t the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same. Iâ(TM)ve learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. Iâ(TM)ve always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Governmentâ(TM)s basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But Iâ(TM)ve come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, âoeFascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.â Iâ(TM)m afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.â

Re:Their Media is Your Prison - "Oh beehave!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087271)

tl;dr: Keep watching out only for corporations and the national security apparatus wanting to control you, so that you won't notice the Secular Left Progressive movement actually taking more and more control over you.

Re:Their Media is Your Prison - "Oh beehave!" (1)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087381)

It is the right wing we have to worry about, the moralistic, want to lock you up if you don't follow all our moral rules, pro-rich, anti-union, anti-worker politicians, who will pass a law that gives you a 20 year prison sentence for opposing job benefit cuts, or reading indecent materials, or saying that 1% of the population should NOT control 90% of the wealth, etc.

Time to start building my Iranian Drone Catcher (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087177)

If one lands in my backyard, can I keep it? Can I play the grumpy old man, with the fenced-in yard, who tells the neighborhood children: "No, no ball went over the fence into my yard!" . . . "and their ain't no drone here, neither. Now, scram!"

Are the Iranians selling the plans for their catcher? Or do I have to trade them weapons-grade plutonium for them?

How can you know if drones are circling overhead? Do they have a special air traffic control frequency? Do the drone pilots back at the base communicate with controllers or other pilots? Can I listen in?

Re:Time to start building my Iranian Drone Catcher (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087231)

Go get some clue [diydrones.com] .

Re:Time to start building my Iranian Drone Catcher (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088043)

How can you know if drones are circling overhead? Do they have a special air traffic control frequency? Do the drone pilots back at the base communicate with controllers or other pilots? Can I listen in?

Look up. If you see an aircraft that's too small to have people in it, and you're too far from anyone else who could be controlling it from the ground, odds are... it's a drone. Of course, it may be tough to tell how big, exactly, that airplane is without any reference to compare it to, like if it were on the ground...

Land of The Free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087273)

A mark for everyone, coming soon...

A camera in every home, Kinect(ted) and always watching...

Waiting for you to make one mistake....

And the pounding of the buttocks will begin...

In your own special cell...

With your own special friend...

"Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do as we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!" -- you know who

How will they make sure (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087287)

That the Muzzies don't get one and crop-spray New York with anthrax or radioactive waste?

Re:How will they make sure (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087333)

It must suck to live in a perpetual state of fear.

Re:How will they make sure (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087367)

That's not their style - too indiscriminate.

Re:How will they make sure (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087401)

That's not their style - too indiscriminate.

Oh, you mean targeted attacks like the 9/11 planes and all the car bombs they set off in syria

pizza drone: looking fwrd to it! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087409)

I'm imagining the sonorous whine of a quadrotor buzzing in with a delicious deep dish supreme in 12 minutes or less (bakes on the way).

"raises new worries" my ass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087423)

It doesn't raise new worries, both because aerial surveilance doesn't require drones (we have these manned vehicles called "airplanes" and/or "aeroplanes", perhaps you've heard of them?), and because people have already been worrying about government drones, which are allowed already. Enough with the senationalism, already.

Re:"raises new worries" my ass! (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087437)

It gives the "black helicopter" people something new to be deeply concerned about.

Re:"raises new worries" my ass! (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087479)

Drones are cheaper, drones stay up longer and you can run several drones at a time for the price of one helicopter crew.

reality is what it is (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087435)

and fighting this fact is really stupid. Eventually everyone will know everything they want to know, no one can stop this.

5 quatloos (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087463)

I wager 5 quatloos the first drone related death or injury happens within 6 months from the date of this post.

Re:5 quatloos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088309)

I wager 5 quatloos the first drone related death or injury happens within 6 months from the date of this post.

I assume that you exclude all the people in places like Afghanistan, etc., where there have already been scores of injuries and deaths from drones... oh and by the way... what the fuck is a quatloo?

Every article seems to have a troll comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087475)

Every article here tends to havew a shoehorned "controversy" attached to it; something that no normal person cares about. It's not just Slashdot (although Slashdot's always tend to be more awkwardly phrased) as the newspapers to it too. I know it's made to provoke comment - but it's unnecessary - as someone would bring up the concern if it was legitimate.

The example here is: "the law raises new worries about how much detail the drones will capture about lives down below"

Bullshit. No it doesn't. It means we have drones in the sky.

Broookeeeennn Federal Law! (1)

JCPM (2577407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087603)

To try daily one into White House or Congress House invading its aerial space and then to be triggered the alarm!.

It's the question, to be fined or not? The cause of all is its broooken federal law!.

JCPM: i told them many times that the lawmakers (politicians) that did break themselves their laws (written by themshelves) must be punished or condemned or fined! It's the thing of a wise mankind.

Barrage Balloons! (2)

jmcharry (608079) | more than 2 years ago | (#39087625)

This could revive a long dormant industry.

Re:Barrage Balloons! (2)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088193)

This could revive a long dormant industry. (barrage balloons)

Too easy for zoning and the FAA to make illegal.

I was thinking more along the lines of laser gun sighting systems that automatically compute proper sighting "lead" (the amount of distance one must aim ahead of a moving target for the round to meet the target as it travels) that could be fitted to most shotguns or rifles.

Center the target, activate the electronic sight, and an aiming "pip" will appear in the sight picture at the proper distance ahead of the direction of the target's travel, indicating where to fire. If you've ever played a combat flight-sim game (or the space-combat portion of Halo3), you'll understand what I mean.

Once law enforcement starts using drones on a large scale, methods *will* be found to take them out/bring them down. Once THAT happens, then you'll start seeing manned police aircraft/helicopters being shot down, with the accompanying loss of life both of the aircraft pilot/passengers and also innocent bystanders on the ground that are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Strat

air traffic control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39087853)

this can only get worse for them

when the air traffic control is collapsed ... (1)

JCPM (2577407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088465)

There will be social movements claiming "Cartels of prohibitions of helicopters in this zone" (similar to forbid parking vehicles here but in the sense of to forbid flying here).

When evil governments, local or federal, don't agree them then it could ocurr a scene of helicopters's riots, as using helipcopters as evil weapons or evil tools.

By example, the helicopters could be used for Big Brother, or for being used by traficcers for trafficing drugs, money, tobaccoes, bioweapons, etc without being arrested, or for being used by thieves for assaulting banks, jewelries, or big commercial sites, etc.

Meanwhile, the police officials will be working seat on their office's seats while piloting their GPS-controlled helicopters that could be controlled automatically by central computers of the undergrounds of the federal headquarters (illuminati?, masonry?, zionism?).

The air traffic of helicopters could be collapsed, crashed, etc. and some peoples could claiming money to the securities companies dedicated to this category of aviation. Air control towers will be collapsed due to this excess of air traffic, or jobless.

Worst is the situation when the helicopters (machines) kill peoples (persons). Did you ear Terminator? It's ROBOTs against PEOPLEs.

By example, a police mini-helicopter did shoot a canyon of neutrons to your home's window for scanning your body, and then to kill you! (as in the movie of Eraser of actor Arnold Schwarzenegger patched with an helicopter for its evil police strategy).

It will be a big joke when a police helicopter is prosecuting another criminal-suspected helicopter. This form of prosecution is totally different!. Because 3D gives to the criminal-suspected helicopter one more freedom degree than 2D (the car prosecution is too limited to roads, streets and street-ends). Then for easing the police's prosecution, the US will need another federal law for arming the federal helicopters, it's weaponed helicopters for shooting the criminal-suspected helicopters, and to terminate easily the time of prosecution.

And when the air-helicopters society is spread over all the world similar to as internet, then the U.S. government can intrude easily the incorporation of their UFOcopters (from Area 51 of state Nevada) weared as normal helicopters, as viriicopters or virucopters, and to gain to huge scale advantages at remote distances (trans-trans-trans-oceanic), but by now, then NOT!!!.

Now, told similar to drones as to helicopters.

They wanted it for WARGAMES, i don't like them.

Terrible is the thing when 4 helicopters did come to my home as 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse!!!.

JCPM: i did think twice this concern, and i shouldn't permit to approve a federal law that brings chaos. It seems to be supported acts of jewish zionism for U.S. and subsumited allies.

Overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088103)

Welcome.

Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39088271)

Kids taking them down with pellet guns, drones falling out of the sky onto the freeway... Fun, fun, fun!

These aren't the drones you're looking for (1)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088275)

These are the drones looking for you

It's got to be said: terrorists (1)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088347)

I think a moments thought will make someone realize that the possibilities for using these for terrorist (or assassination also known as "targeted killing") is real.

How hard would it be to attach a simple grenade to one of these things? Or a lightweight gun? Combined this a cell phone or GPS trigger (gives a new application for Geo-fencing) and you've got a device that can be triggered at distance.

I know that the "rules" will prohibit them fom being used out of sight of the controller but I imagine many slashdotters here could easily come up with a hack around that. Even if the "target" (presumably some important political event) uses counter-measures such as, perhaps, a local GPS jammer during an event (sure to upset the neighbors), you'd imagine that it would be (relatively) easy to put a video camera on the thing and fly it to the target by communicating with it via 3G or 4G. I doubt the authorities will shut THAT down every time there's a political rally! Who knows, with the power of the latest smartphones, maybe you could have the drone run "face recognition" software and track down your target without any ground control at all! (Maybe though politicians would put their faces on balloons at every event to deceive these systems; at least they've got plenty of hot air).

So will we be seeing political rallies/major gatherings guarded by tiny anti-aircraft batteries? (It would be kinda neat to see laser batteries being used). What other solutions are there which would still permit the widespread use of these toys I mean tools?

TFA is misleading - cops already can use drones (4, Interesting)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 2 years ago | (#39088389)

I see worries in the comments about "the police using them to spy on civilians". They already can.

The only thing a new law like this does is to fix a loophole. UAS and UAV systems can already be used by cops and state govs, by universities (limited), by companies developing experimental aircraft (limited), and for hobby purposes (unregulated, but there are some clear limitations such as flying within range of an airport or above buildings). But you cannot be legally paid to do aerial photography from a UAV/UAS! In other words, you have to pay a pilot to fly a photographer around to legally get aerial pictures. The only other option was using blimps (tethered) and cranes. An entire industry has evolved for erecting collapsible poles to attach cameras because of this rule.

Here are the rules. [faa.gov] In it you'll find a letter with the common sense approach for hobbyists, and statements that the FAA will not grant companies any licenses to fly UAS except for experimental aircraft.

Lastly, SHAME ON THE NYT for that last sentence. They just had to jump on the idiot bandwagon and imply a connection between terrorists and photography. [schneier.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?