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!

Report Hints At Privacy Problem of Drones That Can Recognize Faces

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the well-this-water's-just-a-bit-warm dept.

Privacy 107

New submitter inotrollyou writes "Drones are getting more sophisticated, and will soon carry 'soft' biometrics and facial recognition software. In other news, sales of hats, tinfoil, and laser pointers go up 150%. Obviously there are major privacy concerns and not everyone is down for this." It's not just drones, either: In my old neighborhood in Philadelphia the Orwellian police cameras were everywhere, and they're being touted as a solution for crime in my Texas neighborhood, too. The report itself is more predictive than proscriptive; under U.S. law, as the Register points out, you can expect less legal as well as practical privacy protection the further you are on the continuum between home and public space.

cancel ×

107 comments

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

Cameras can see things? (-1, Troll)

Leinad177 (2708661) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345421)

What a completely shocking discovery.

Re:Cameras can see things? (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345463)

That's not the problem.

The problem is that cameras plus other spying techniques can see things, and analyze them quickly, and helpfully inform any police officer that's interested that Leinad177 left his house at 7:56 AM, drove 2 blocks east, 3 blocks south, went into a Dunkin' Donuts (from the credit card and POS system, he likes a double latte and 3 Boston Cremes), got back into his car, got on the nearby interstate, drove to the office (where he works according to tax forms), arriving at 8:36 AM. He then browsed /. much of the morning, left for lunch at Applebees (had a chicken fajita rollup and a large soda), went back to work, did some sysadmin work (all you can tell here is the ssh to the company servers) most of the afternoon, left at 4:42 PM, and then drove downtown to the political protest. At the protest, he chatted with a few people, shouted some slogans, and held a camera phone while watching police beat up an Iraq War veteran, and footage of the Iraq War veteran being beaten made it on to the evening news.

And later that evening, Leinad177 got a visit from the PD demanding that he turn over his phone. He refused because the police couldn't produce a warrant, so a secret instruction went out to pull over his car for minor infractions, the IRS was instructed to make sure he was given a thorough audit, and prosecutors asked to look for something they could arrest him for.

Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345499)

Before anyone chimes in with "Do nothing wrong and you have nothing to worry about."

A lawyer friend of mine cited a stat that on average, everyone breaks three laws per day because there are so many laws on the books. In other words, everyone is a criminal. And mix in municipalites with budget problems, well, you can just see ticketing machines like in "Demolition Man".

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345531)

Notice, also, that in the example I gave, Leinad177 probably committed no crime more serious than going 5 mph over the speed limit.

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345705)

And the reason why everyone isn't arrested is because the police couldn't give two fucks about what you're doing as long as it isn't bothering anyone else or quite obviously dangerous. The reason for machines to hand out tickets is because the cops don't want to put in the effort necessary to hand out a ticket to every jaywalker and speeder they come across.

The easiest way to avoid the police under the most Orwellian camera system imaginable is: Don't look like a criminal, don't act like a criminal. Whining about how you should be allowed to do whatever you want and act however you want is childish bullshit. You act like a child, you're going to get treated as one. You act like a douchebag, you're going to get treated as one. First impressions, and all.

Even if you do act like an idiot for the cameras, your idea of how much information police will get from the recordings is pure paranoid delusions. Especially the parts where the cameras somehow have enough details to tell how Leinad177 pays for anything, the specific food that was ordered, and anything at all he did at work (or even which specific computer in the network he was using to find out he was browsing /.), and the police somehow having enough influence to get the IRS involved when they're just pissed at someone.

You mean it is gasp! a revenue collection play? (1)

tlambert (566799) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345887)

I simply can not credit government wanting more money to line their pockets.

"bothering anyone else" or revenue collection (1)

tlambert (566799) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345997)

Just saying. Not a lot of love from the red light cams when there is a mechanical failure that prevents you getting your car out of gear...

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (5, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346053)

And the reason why everyone isn't arrested is because the police couldn't give two fucks about what you're doing as long as it isn't bothering anyone else or quite obviously dangerous.

Again, if you actually read the post, the reason my hypothetical person was targeted was not because he committed a crime, but because he filmed police doing something that was embarassing to the police and possible illegal. And given that police around the country have been caught harassing people for filming them committing crimes, to think that they would react that way is not a paranoid delusion, it's realistic.

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41347915)

If you actually read my post, I say it's paranoid delusional to believe that a police camera plus other (police) spying techniques could find out how he paid for his food, what kind of food he liked let alone ordered, what websites he was viewing, where he works (according to his tax forms, no less), and what kind of work he was doing at work (including right down to the ssh to the company servers). But you're right, it's not paranoid delusional to think a camera on auto-pilot can do all of that. It's just ignorance of technology.

Police "spying" techniques can find out exactly zero of those details, particularly with a drone that ostensibly would not be allowed inside private properties without permission from the property owners (which the police can't count on unless there is an emergency situation in progress), and particularly if the drone is supposed to be doing covert surveillance. The quality of camera recordings from street side (from angles that will allow the drone to remain hidden) isn't going to be able to read an order on a cashier's register or a receipt slip with even tinier text, and any data from the credit card systems, point of sale, company computers, or the IRS is subpoenaed from the credit card company, the ISPs, his own company, and the IRS respectively.

Why the guy would get arrested was nowhere in my post, and isn't even relevant to the topic at hand. Why he would be followed is the topic, and I pointed out (I thought) pretty clearly that acting like a criminal and acting suspiciously will get you followed. To bring it full circle so you can understand, he wouldn't have been followed in the first place. The police wouldn't have paid him any mind until he joined the protest unless he had already done something earlier to put himself in their sights that has nothing to do with and wasn't referenced in your post.

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346101)

the police couldn't give two fucks about what you're doing as long as it isn't bothering anyone else

A majority of arrests and convictions in the USA are for victimless crimes (recreational drugs, gambling, commercial sex, etc.). The police (and politicians, and voters) care very much about what you do in private.

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (2)

canadiannomad (1745008) | more than 2 years ago | (#41347251)

Also part of the problem is that they didn't give two fucks about Leinad177 prior to the embarrassing incident, but can gather all that information after the fact, along with facebook and linkedin histories, possibly emails from Hotmail/GMail, search histories, tracking cookies, etc. To find something historical that they can give two fucks about to create a case about after the fact. If I can search through your entire life history with digital search tools that can quickly track you via images in cameras from years ago, POS transactions from years ago, mobile positions from years ago (tracking you and your car), I'm sure I could find something you did that looks suspicious... They notice that his cell phone records passed nearby to a terrorist cell holdout 6 years ago and put a brown paper bag in a garbage can(McDs?). Later someone(maybe a bum?) searches the garbage and takes various items and walks off camera. Maybe you're a terrorist, and didn't even know it... Trip to gitmo without charges, under suspicion of terrorism?
Or maybe he is 50something and has Type II Diabetes and regularly purchases small quantities of marijuana for its blood sugar stabilizing effects, anti-inflammatory effects and as a vasodilator. Despite having a doctors prescription, it is illegal, and they find out via the cameras about his early use(he started having it delivered privately 7 years ago) and start to harass him about thereby deprive him of his life improving medication.
The problem is not just that they can get the information, it is that they do get the information, and store it for years(indefinitely?), just in case they want to go after you for something in the future. This is like wiretapping, putting cameras in everyone's homes and tracking devices on every person, logging everything everyone does just in case one day they slip up and become a "person of interest".

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (3)

shiftless (410350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41348025)

The easiest way to avoid the police under the most Orwellian camera system imaginable is: Don't look like a criminal, don't act like a criminal. Whining about how you should be allowed to do whatever you want and act however you want is childish bullshit. You act like a child, you're going to get treated as one. You act like a douchebag, you're going to get treated as one. First impressions, and all.

As the representative (and veteran) of a free country:

FUCK YOU.

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#41350391)

And the reason why everyone isn't arrested is because the police couldn't give two fucks about what you're doing as long as it isn't bothering anyone else or quite obviously dangerous.

It must be nice to be that ignorant and naive. The police must be some sort of nebulous entity to you. Strict enforcers of justice, purely impartial, free from corruption, and acting with an unending, unwavering, and pure interest in the greater good.

Police are people too. Notice how hard they are fighting back against people video taping their activities? Have you ever heard from somebody that has been targeted and harassed by the police and city because they are making "waves"?

These people don't need more tools to abuse you with. They have plenty.

The easiest way to avoid the police under the most Orwellian camera system imaginable is: Don't look like a criminal, don't act like a criminal.

Ohhh shit. We need to get you in front of a camera so you can deliver this pearl of wisdom to the whole world ASAP.

Sooo... just what does a criminal look like? Just what do they "do"? I say that because the most sociopathic and dangerous assholes the planet has ever seen walk around in expensive suits .

I see... you must be simplistically talking about people walking around in hoodies....

Whining about how you should be allowed to do whatever you want and act however you want is childish bullshit. You act like a child, you're going to get treated as one. You act like a douchebag, you're going to get treated as one. First impressions, and all.

No, you dick. All most of want is some shred of privacy and dignity in our lives. Freedom is not just doing whatever you want and acting however you want. That's anarchy you douchenozzle. Freedom is not anarchy.

Even if you do act like an idiot for the cameras, your idea of how much information police will get from the recordings is pure paranoid delusions. Especially the parts where the cameras somehow have enough details to tell how Leinad177 pays for anything, the specific food that was ordered, and anything at all he did at work (or even which specific computer in the network he was using to find out he was browsing /.), and the police somehow having enough influence to get the IRS involved when they're just pissed at someone.

I guess you have never heard of Total Informational Awareness (TIA) hmmmmmm? That would be too complicated for you, abstracting the world as a bunch of nodes that continually create data and affect other nodes. A bunch of complicated math, terms, etc.

Well to simplify it for you, the police and governments are increasingly beating down the doors of wireless carriers and social network with legislation and strong arm tactics to gain access to the all the information that they have.

If the police have biometrics, it is very highly probable they are going to use a database that has biometric information on just about everybody in a city. It's called the DMV. Furthermore, the police could just issue requests to the wireless carriers to identify all the "tracking devices" that were present within 50 feet of the area in question at that specific time. You would think that would be problematic, but law enforcement has been pushing for years to have an honor based system for real time intercepts and access to this information.

As for the payments, was the person using a debit or credit card? If you think VISA, Master Card, AMEX, etc. have not already been working with TIA, then you are hopelessly naive. The police could just request that information from Dunkin Donuts. Do you really think somebody working at corporate for Dunkin Donuts is going to deny Law Enforcement something as innocent sounding as a persons purchase history for the month (via their rewards membership tracking card)?

How would the police officer been able to track his movements to the Dunkin Donuts in the first place? Paranoid Delusions you say? Not at all. License plate scanners and biometrics installed at every traffic light. His movements have been recorded now for years. So extensively in fact, that his name popped up on a list of people statistically most likely to have been 1000 feet away from the mugging that occurred there 24 hours ago. If not the perp, then surely a witness?

Why stop there? Data points, data points, data points. Verizon Wireless, one way or the other, has been providing all the GPS information from all the little communications his "tracking device" has been making with the towers and keeping them for 24 months.

Data points corroborating other data points.

His web browsing history? Completely impossible. Well... wait a minute... hmmm. How do all those Big Data marketing firms get their information? Ohh, that's right. Even DHCP leases don't change that often anymore and law enforcement has been prodding ISPs for years now to start keeping a DNS query history on every customer. That's anonymized though. Wait... law enforcement was pushing for their access to the data to not be anonymized. Hmmm... not so sure about that now.

Yeah. All of it is pure paranoid delusions about what the police can get from biometrically identified citizens at a protest. Not possible to identify them, even if you did, just what could you possibly find out anyways ?

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41350937)

Thank you for saving me the time writing what would have been an inferior version what you've written.

I love you :)

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41352477)

MOD PARENT UP! MOD PARENT UP!

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41352937)

Even if you do act like an idiot for the cameras, your idea of how much information police will get from the recordings is pure paranoid delusions.

Boy, you are dumb. You're missing the implication. This is a cautionary tale. Yes, the authorities (notice I don't narrow this down to 'police') may not have sufficient data access and analytic grunt at this time to make that story real - yet. But it's coming. Very soon. Facial recognition software gets better, hardware gets more powerful. Governments and industry want more and more information about you while spouting platitudes about privacy and thinking of the children/crime prevention. These are all excuses. Transactions and personal communications are moving online onto single-organization sites like Facebook for which governments *do* have access and not always needing a subpoena. Integration of financial data and software that can extract behavioral themes from massive amounts of data is coming. That latter is already here for pulling themes out of petabytes of metadata in traffic going past without scanning the content itself according to NSA whistleblowers.

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346849)

The best way for us to get rid of the representatives and government we disagree with would be to force the laws they passed to be fully enforced. Everyone would turn the elected out at the next election.

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (1)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 2 years ago | (#41347351)

Before anyone chimes in with "Do nothing wrong and you have nothing to worry about."

Yep. That's false no matter what. This 50min video for law students at YouTube has a police officer explaining in detail every single trick their peers (and he himself) use to get confessions and convictions, even from innocent people: Dont Talk to Police [youtube.com] . As he explains at one point, it isn't "it MIGHT be used against you", it's "it WILL be used against you". Even if you're innocent. Specially if you're innocent. Because then you'll talk, without minding your words. And then they WILL use... every... single... word... applying to them the worst, most distorted interpretation possible. Always.

A lawyer friend of mine cited a stat that on average, everyone breaks three laws per day because there are so many laws on the books. In other words, everyone is a criminal.

I don't know how it's in the USA, but a few years ago someone calculated here in Brazil we have, adding up all branches and levels of government, about 1.5 million (yes, million) laws. Most of them with tons of articles, filled with all sorts of conditions, details and the like. It's completely impossible for one to obey all of them, all of the time, simultaneously. Heck, it's probably impossible to obey even a tenth of them simultaneously, for more than 2 seconds, while sleeping. What hope is there for any normal person to not be a criminal? None!

Everyone is a criminal, no exceptions.

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (2)

drkim (1559875) | more than 2 years ago | (#41349433)

Not me. I'm not breaking any laws. I'm just sitting here quietly in my chair.
Not doing nothing wrong.

Wait. My testicles are producing testosterone.

Under SEC. 2. (c) (41) of the "Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990"
"The term `anabolic steroid' means any drug or hormonal substance that promotes muscle growth in a manner pharmacologically similar to testosterone, and includes..."
(X) Testosterone.

Under this act, anabolic steroids are now Schedule III drugs.

Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act,
therefor makes it unlawful to possess (Section 844) or manufacture (Section 959) Testosterone.

Aw, nuts.

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#41349629)

Fuck.

I always knew those two stupid bastards were up to no good. Always getting me into trouble.

Re:Before anyone says 'Do nothing wrong ...." (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#41349595)

Demolition Man

Well that's all fine and fucking dandy. I'l be damnded before they make me use the three seashells.

They can pry my Charmin out of my cold dead hands.......

Re:Cameras can see things? (1)

Leinad177 (2708661) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345523)

I wish i could mod up that post, it's quite entertaining. However the article posted is mere speculation and will most likely turn out like flying cars or y2k . I'm all for being worried when a competent system is released. But until then i think that most of us are overestimating the ability of people in the world. I'm all for being wrong though, i'll gladly change my opinion on the subject if you can provide proof that a competent bug-proof program can handle everything you described and is ready for release anytime this year or the next. Anyways my original post was simply trying to point out how obvious it is that things with cameras invade privacy, this isn't news.

Re:Cameras can see things? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345685)

Notice that in the part about the protest, if they're are, say, 30 people in a camera shot, identifying everybody without this kind of face recognition is quite a chore and is typically only done if the footage shows something illegal happening. By comparison, with face recognition, it's basically a matter of pressing a button, so it will be done whenever the police feel like it. Of course, this isn't entirely flawless: It could very well be that you end up getting blamed for the activities of your no-good cousin who looks very similar to you.

Re:Cameras can see things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345739)

Even with facial recognition, you need to have done something that would get your face into a database. Not simply being at a protest, but actually doing something that would get you singled out from the crowd and arrested so that the police can get your ID. If you don't get arrested, and you don't have a record, the police can't give any information to a database to track you.

Re:Cameras can see things? (3, Insightful)

xclr8r (658786) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345789)

You are already in the system to be able to set up a match regardless of whether you have committed a previous crime or not. Between a license and State ID nearly everyone has something in a state held database for facial recognition.

Re:Cameras can see things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345877)

"Even with facial recognition, you need to have done something that would get your face into a database."

Something like getting a driver's license?

Re:Cameras can see things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41346087)

Ah. Right. Overlooked that. >_>

Welp, all I can say to that is the police can already do this, so it doesn't matter if they get a drone to do it for them because it's basically just a flying camera anyway. Whatever restrictions the police might have are going to apply to their drones, too, so a privacy issue for the drone is already going to be a privacy issue from the police. More efficient face recognition does not make a bigger privacy issue than face recognition in the first place, after all.

Re:Cameras can see things? (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | more than 2 years ago | (#41347701)

I have a drivers licence and a passport. Both of which made me have my taken picture under strict conditions, no smiling, no hair over face, etc. Their excuse: facial recognition. They aren't even hiding it, it is why you have to have your picture taken like a mug shot.

Re:Cameras can see things? (2)

manaway (53637) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346483)

I'm all for being worried when a competent system is released.

If a law or use of technology is wrong (according to community or other public agreement), the time to act is before it's put in place. If the public waits until afterward, the task is more difficult.

Re:Cameras can see things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345607)

I doesn't matter, because the entire time Leinad77 was being controlled by secret radio waves being broadcast from Colorado. What he was shouting during the protest was actually a Homeland Security agent channeling through him. Next time wear your tinfoil hat.

Re:Cameras can see things? (1)

Jessified (1150003) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346217)

It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).

Re:Cameras can see things? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346251)

It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).

Schoolyard conversation a number of years from now:

"My dad's drone can beat up your dad's drone."

Re:Cameras can see things? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#41347417)

It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).

Except that it's a safe bet that civilian drones will be heavily licensed, regulated, limited in their lawful abilities/features, and restricted like firearms are now. Likely even more heavily-regulated than firearms. The government, with it's current attitude, would never allow civilians the legal ability to use drones as in your example.

The official in your example would inform law enforcement, and they in turn would send a SWAT team to your house and arrest you after identifying and tracking you with a LE drone and using the drone's various sensors/scanners to check for any weapons/explosives in your home, who else is there, and where each of you are within the residence and monitoring/recording any conversations inside.

Strat

Re:Cameras can see things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41352985)

It cuts both ways. With drones getting very cheap, soon regular citizens will be able to afford them. So start tracking the movements of key officials and posting them to a twitter feed (or whatever is popular in a couple of years).

The government would no doubt call that stalking or suspicious illegal surveillance and you'd be arrested and charged if not labelled a terrorist. They could fuck with you a million ways before it even went to court.

Re:Cameras can see things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41346333)

There is a built in protection against things like cops or the IRS singling out people for political or popularity driven reasons. They don't have the staff to mess with all of the people that they would like to mess with. The IRS alone could easily sweep down on several million Americans who are tax cheats, grab their holdings and toss them in prison. They just do not have the time to reel in all the fish they know they can land. And then there is the expense. It is like busting drug users. You end up spending a fortune to arrest, try and support them in prisons. Since you get beat to death with taxes you just can't win by tossing people in jail. On the other hand the less you wreck their lives the more it encourages others to commit the same crimes.
                        What facial recognition software can do for us is enable us to snag the worst of the worst criminals among us.
                        People who holler about privacy seem to me to be wanting to be able to continue in their crimes. Such as getting over on insurance companies by lies about ones eating or smoking habits.

Re:Cameras can see things? (1)

iiiears (987462) | more than 2 years ago | (#41347815)

The Stasi would of loved this anyone can be monitored on a moments notice. Nixon would of loved this Jack Anderson? not so much. W. Mark Felt Watergate's "Deep Throat" and Washington Post reporters would have found it difficult. Reporters everywhere will need a new way to protect their sources. Maybe a website you can upload encrypted documents to...

Any ideas?

Privacy Burqas anyone? (4, Interesting)

glop (181086) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345423)

So the solution is simple. Let's all wear burqas to protect our privacy!
I believe you can also analyze people's gaits and recognize them that way. So let's all use Segways.
That would be a rather funny dystopian future, no?
Or I guess we could start making a few laws defending our right to some anonymity.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (5, Funny)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345459)

But if you make laws to protect people's privacy, then the terrorists win!

Because only a terrorist would want to protect their privacy.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345569)

+1 I wish I had mod points.

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" makes me want to barf.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345667)

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, but a Large Boot up their Ass." -A. Coward

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (0)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345713)

You feel so now, but that will change when you have children. Then everything that was important before fades into the background compared to Their Safety. And the TSA and the cameras, while bad, might stop some terrorists, ergo.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345923)

Not all of us turn into paranoid, illogical morons...

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346261)

Not all of us turn into paranoid, illogical morons...

But the vast majority of us can certainly do a pretty credible imitation.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41350581)

Tell us your secret.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41346353)

As a parent, I hereby declare that you are full of shit.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (2)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346427)

I have two young kids. I feel ashamed about the world we are providing them to grow up in. If you had children, you'd probably know other parents and get the exposure needed to disabuse you of your incorrect generalizations.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41350595)

Right, so why are you letting them on a plane before age 18? Their weak immune systems plus that recycled air (partial engine bleed) will surely shorten their life.

Your kids should have had part of my childhood -> hours spent in the 100 acre woods behind my house, with no one in immediate range. As a bonus, they'd have a healthy respect for gravity.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41350237)

When i asked the cop if HE minded if i searched through his house, he said he would mind. He must have something to hide.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345461)

The last thing we need are Jawas on Segways...
Better to rise up against the machines now.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345505)

So the solution is simple. Let's all wear burqas to protect our privacy!

Maybe the "scramble suits" in Philip K. Dick's A Scanner Darkly [amazon.com] , instead of being a sad manifestation of the author's mental illness as long thought, were an idea whose time is coming. On the other hand, many jurisdictions already have laws against walking around in a face mask of any kind.

Re: many jurisdictions already have laws against.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41347935)

... and have laws against removing the license plate from your car. The original purpose of a license plate was merely to prove that you had paid a registration tax, not as a means of identifying someone.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (3, Interesting)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345559)

You are looking for the Pixelated Mask/Balaclava

http://www.martinbackes.com/new-artwork-pixelhead/ [martinbackes.com]

One with a person actually wearing it:
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120823-44537.html [thelocal.de]

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345717)

Nice idea but already illegal in many countries...

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (3, Funny)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346065)

Police carry guns-->illegal for the public to carry guns
Police wear balaklavas-->illegal for the public to wear balaklavas
Police eat donuts-->WHERE WILL THE MADNESS END?

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41348267)

True, but why are governments in the US permitted to write anti-mask laws? Such things are rather clearly unconstitutional on several levels, but nobody fights it because, up until now, the only reason other than parties and parades to wear a mask in public was because you were up to something. It simply wasn't necessary to obscure your face to stop privacy violations.

"But, but, anybody can see you in public". The statists and cop-apologists like to say that one a lot. Like most conservative crap, it's both factual on the surface and a lie when applied to the argument at hand. Anybody can see you in public. People who know you MIGHT remember that they saw you somewhere. People who don't know you are going to forget about you in a few minutes unless you do something to make them remember you. A camera, though, will never forget you until it's told to. That changes the game, and until the courts wake up and figure out that very simple truth we are going to be faced with abomination after abomination. That, BTW, is why it is necessary to never elect a cop-apologist statist to the executive of the country or of any state--because they get to appoint judges. Generally statists masquerade as "conservatives" these days, though they are actually radical and not conservative at all.

Conservatives like to tout "freedom", but one would be very hard pressed to find any decisions which really, seriously increase personal freedom out of the current right-wing Supreme Court. A very notable exception would be some of the recent gun cases and the lukewarm ruling on GPS tracking, but go look up the 60s and 70s and you'll find decision after decision that reduced the power of the police, reduced the power of poiticians to dictate your lives, and actually really increased personal freedoms. These were followed by laws that reigned in the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies and which put space between them, rather than combining them under the Orwellian "Homeland Security" umbrella.

Many of the justices involved in those decisions were actually Republican appointees, BTW. They just took seriously the business about a lifetime appointment giving them the ability to rule on the law free from politics. One lesson learned after Reagan was elected was to never, ever appoint a judge who might do that again. They still get burned from time to time, but for the most part they succeed in that, which is why they must be stopped.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345707)

But I have huge moobs and might be mistaken for a woman! Wait... I feel a hysterical plot for a movie coming on... Coming soon to a theater near you! Abdul is fresh off the boat from Afghanistan! And he's about to find out that all those hot American women aren't women at all!... Still coming... still coming... Doh! I lost it!

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (3, Interesting)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345757)

Easier solution: let it be known that cops are being replaced with cameras. Cops currently support the camera system under the belief it helps them do their job. But if they start to think it makes them obsolete....

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41346181)

Yeah good fucking luck on that front.
We have obama the media mafia asshole now. Lookin like romney the robot is next. He belongs to the banks and insurance companies.

None of them. And none of the people in power have any interest in protecting anything the rest of us would call 'rights'. Unless it involves the right to be a good little consumer/worker and shut the fuck up.

And as the majority (or so im told) of people in this country keep voting for D and R (like they are different) None of this shit has any chance of changing.

NONE!

While we might not all be morons. There's enough cattle in the herd to push us all over the cliff no matter if you wan't to go or not..

The rest of the country is going to keep arguing over D and R as they were taught.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He doesn't give a fuck about your rights either.

All in all america makes me glad i'm not 20 anymore. Because at my current age i won't live long enough to see it really get stupid.
And it's going to.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346649)

We have a right to anonymity? Since when?

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41347157)

How about no right to be anonymous and no right to spy on people with drones, and no right to arrest. No rights all around. Takes all the gas out of the bag.

Re:Privacy Burqas anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41347261)

It was before Facebook and MySpace.
Kids these days.
Get off my lawn!

The TRUTH about Slashdot! +5 INFORMATIVE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345449)

Let us play a thought game, for a moment.

Imagine a giant penis flying towards your mouth, and there's nothing you can do about it. And you're like "Oh man, I'm gonna have to suck this thing", and you brace yourself to suck this giant penis. But then, at the last moment, it changes trajectory and hits you in the eye. You think to yourself "Well, at least I got that out of the way", but then the giant penis rears back and stabs your eye again, and again, and again. Eventually, this giant penis is penetrating your gray matter, and you begin to lose control of your motor skills. That's when the giant penis slaps you across the cheek, causing you to fall out of your chair. Unable to move and at your most vulnerable, the giant penis finally lodges itself in your anus, where it rests uncomfortably for 4, maybe 5 hours.

That's what using Slashdot is like.

What about *MY* drones? (5, Insightful)

felisconcolori (1191151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345477)

I often see this targeted specifically towards law enforcement drones. But what about MY drones? Facial recognition software isn't limited to them, and camera-toting low flying drones (or just cameras) are increasingly lower in price. (Example, the AR.Drone.)

If laws are needed to protect privacy, they need to be expanded beyond just law enforcement. I'm certain that Facebook, Amazon, Target, Google, etc, all have far more extensive databases that can (in conjunction with facial recognition software and a camera) not only track where you are (and verify with cell phone data) but what stores are between your destinations, in your vicinity, and target advertisements very specifically.

The government is not efficient enough, nor do they have the technical savvy, to use the vast majority of the data they collect. Even assuming that department A talks to agency C, or that they have remotely compatable databases/protocols.

Re:What about *MY* drones? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345701)

"The government is not efficient enough, nor do they have the technical savvy, to use the vast majority of the data they collect."

If you believe this you have been listening to too much media chatter. The government's "technical savvy" is as great as any available and its lack of "efficiency" just means that they are not constrained by limited resources.

The problem with imagining distopian futures from fiction is that people always see themselves as the protagonist in the story. But the vast majority of people in these stories do not see themselves living in a distopia. They see it as normal. In the last 20 years, most people have lost almost all semblance of privacy and enormous resources, public and private, are going into obliterating whatever is left. The only thing protecting most of us is disinterest, No one cares about most of the details of our lives. Google doesn't really care whether you are visiting your grandma or your lover.

Re:What about *MY* drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345993)

Google doesn't really care whether you are visiting your grandma or your lover.

I still don't want people spying on me, and that may not be true. Not only that, but at least Google doesn't have as much of a chance of ruining my life.

Re:What about *MY* drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345729)

private drones are illegal.

Re:What about *MY* drones? (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345769)

The government is not efficient enough, nor do they have the technical savvy, to use the vast majority of the data they collect. Even assuming that department A talks to agency C, or that they have remotely compatable databases/protocols.

The NSA exists to be efficient, technically savvy, and have the ability to glom multiple databases together.

The idea that government is not efficient or "savvy" really needs to lay down and take a nap.
There's a reason we talk about things that require the resources of a government.

Re:What about *MY* drones? (1)

felisconcolori (1191151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346177)

Just as soon as the NSA willingly hands over any of that data, or solicits the input of another federal agency (let alone local or state police departments) without a written order from someone of authority, your argument may have merit.

I do not see this happening any time soon.

(Note: I have some familiarity with the cultural and procedural difficulties inherent in cooperation, even within a single organization.)

Re:What about *MY* drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345959)

The government always becomes efficient enough when the right time arises.

Not efficient enough? If they are inefficient just once and wrongly harass or blackmail a civilian, or the information is used for criminal purposes by law enforcement, it's a problem.

They rounded up Japanese-Americans using paper censorship records that were only detailed to city block numbers. What do you think a single modern PC is capable of doing?

You think you have to lock up everyone they want to target, or just have an "efficiency" good enough to scare the rest of them?

Your drones? The problem has never been the watchful neighbor. It's the watchful neighbor selling their video feed or organized under a government banner that's the problem.

I have a drone myself. Maybe we should be designing drone hunter killers or other methods and taking out government surveillance equipment.

Re:What about *MY* drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41350259)

The government is not efficient enough, nor do they have the technical savvy, to use the vast majority of the data they collect.

Yeah, let's give the Stasi the equivalent of a Google's worth of computing power, and see how your quaint little assertion turns out.

Or, how about we don't.

How do we Identify "Friend" or Foe Drones? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345489)

Historically, airborne vehicles were few, expensive and clearly identifieid by their markings, and carried an assumption of legality. With inexpensive video-driven drones how will the public be able to clearly identify a "good" drone from a "bad / pervert-driven" drone that's upskirting flybys?

Re:How do we Identify "Friend" or Foe Drones? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#41348293)

With inexpensive video-driven drones how will the public be able to clearly identify a "good" drone from a "bad / pervert-driven" drone that's upskirting flybys?

The upskirting drones will be hovering in ground effect at knee-level.

A STASI wet dream (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345495)

That is all. Welcome to the USSA.

lol (2)

shiftless (410350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41348095)

And the comment pointing it out was modded troll. I'm having flashbacks to Nazi Germany now.

It's for my own good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345565)

It'll keep those damn meddling kids of my lawn.

Isn't that worth it?

The argument for the police state (5, Interesting)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345627)

Is that everyone is strictly liable for everything. My car, parked in a garage, was hit while I was parked. The other driver just left, now I am left holding the deductible, and the insurance surcharge. In effect, this is going to cost me at least 1200 USD unless I can convince my insurance company –who would be the beneficiary of that 1200 dollars – to waive liability. But since no one saw, and there were no cameras, there's only forensic proof that I wasn't at fault. Which means having my solicitor argue in court, which costs money as well.

However, if I had had a camera in my car recording everything, I would have had pictures of the person who did it, and they would be responsible for all of that. Hence, the victim of a crime, and a hit and run is a crime, has a very good reason for wanting a police state. They forget the little things they did to others, and remember only their own distress that someone robbed them of their property. As long as Americans, and I am specifically talking about the US here, are criminals, there is going to be a continual clamoring for more security, as long as everyone is personally responsible for everything. Every so often someone will find some deep pockets to go after, which leads to one of those silly sounding law suits –which sometimes are silly, but are often not as facile as their caricature.

So that's the reality, as long as people who are taking every precaution get screwed by the wild westers out there, they will demand more protection, more security, and hence, fewer rights for all. Because real liberty comes with the price of responsibility, and Americans have long since decided they just don't want the responsibility, and would, instead, rather steal from each other.

As for me, while this loss is annoying, it doesn't seem to me to be a good argument for more spy cams. But I'm not most people, having visited some unfree countries, where there is little crime, because the criminals are all wearing nice blue and green uniforms, and carrying automatic weapons.

Re:The argument for the police state (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345765)

...Americans have long since decided they just don't want the responsibility, and would, instead, rather steal from each other.

Yeah well, it's hard to tell if they follow, or set the example [johnpaulus.com] . American criminals wear nice suits.. Watching the punks is the perfect diversion.

Re:The argument for the police state (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345869)

It's also easier to name the punk in the white SUV that slammed into your car and drove away, drive by banking collapses have many more hands at the wheel.

Re:The argument for the police state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41346373)

If individuals are denied the same rules for surveillance and collection of data about others and the government is less restrained that does set up the potential for social disaster. But if each individual has the same power to observe governments and police then they also must play by the rules. The problem exists because we allow governments to have secrets in the first place. Have you noticed how cops hate cams?

Re:The argument for the police state (1)

shiftless (410350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41348109)

However, if I had had a camera in my car recording everything, I would have had pictures of the person who did it, and they would be responsible for all of that. Hence, the victim of a crime, and a hit and run is a crime, has a very good reason for wanting a police state. They forget the little things they did to others, and remember only their own distress that someone robbed them of their property. As long as Americans, and I am specifically talking about the US here, are criminals, there is going to be a continual clamoring for more security, as long as everyone is personally responsible for everything.

You're right, but got it exactly backwards in the last sentence. Government has steadily removed responsibility from the people, through educating them to be weak and helpless without aid from others. Then passing mandatory insurance laws and the like was simply child's play, by promising guaranteed protection from all ills (i.e. auto accidents) which the citizen was naive suckered into. He would have been financially better off to have just set aside that auto insurance money, and all the other money that he's wasting on insurance companies and other miscellaneous bullshit he doesn't need, and invested it wisely to compound it. Then he would have had the money to deal with life's misfortunes. The fact that I (a careful, prudent, and smart person and driver) am being forced at gunpoint to pay for someone else's mistakes (via the insurance racket), is simply unconscionable in a free society. I have preached this for years and I'm glad to see people are finally beginning to wake up and realize this. Mandatory insurance = a mandatory robbery at gunpoint.

Re:The argument for the police state (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41348183)

If there were no free riders and ultimatum maximizers, we wouldn't need mandatory insurance. But there are.

Oh for fucks sake. GROW UP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41350213)

Oh for fucks sake. GROW UP.

Re:The argument for the police state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41350267)

Your motivations and the governments are very different. I would be happy for you to have as many cameras as you want in your car, the government/police not so much.

Welcome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345637)

Welcome to City 17. You have chosen, or been chosen, to relocate to one of our finest remaining urban centers.

All the need is Google Glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345683)

Just four stories down Google Fanboys are in ecstasy about Google Glasses streaming every minute of their day -- faces and all -- directly to Google's servers. There won't be any need for drone cameras, just get a warrant for Google HQ.

the problem (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345747)

The problem with security issues like this are not the devices or systems themselves, nor is the government that installs them for benevolent purposes like safer streets or to combat terrorism. The problem with such systems are the governments of the future that use what's left for them to oppress. To us, all of these new issues are, at most, annoying. But for our grandchildren, when the wrong person gets into office, these systems could literally become a living nightmare.

Voter ID requiring photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41345753)

Well with all the new laws the GOP is pushing through requiring voter IDs that include a photograph. You're photo will be on file ready for the drones to ID you as a legitimate citizen.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/14/could_pennsylvania_voter_id_law_help

(This is Pennsylvania's law, which is designed to stop non-drivers, mostly Democrats, from voting by requiring a government id card to vote. It happens they don't have enough time left to issue the millions needed by people who can't drive, thus letting Romney win Pennsylvania and the Republicans win those Senate/House seats they want)

Newsflash (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41345803)

CCTV cameras have NEVER prevented a crime.

Also: CCTV cameras have NEVER solved a crime.

Re:Newsflash (0)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346783)

Not true. Several crimes in our state have been solved due to the perps being photographed by surveillance cameras at banks and businesses.

I'm not arguing pro or con on the drones, just correcting the facts.

Re:Newsflash (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41347203)

CCTV isn't admissible for good reason: the resolution sucks.

At twenty feet, one would have difficulty separating the eyes on the face of a subject, never mind smaller features with which to determine a positive identification of a perp.

The only use it has is for extracting confessions.

Re:Newsflash (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#41352509)

But the beauty is the CCTV enabled the police to identify the person and then once they had them they found other clues about their person that were admissible. CCTV photos solved the crime. Without them the perp would have gotten off scott free. Thus CCTV does help solve crimes and is useful.

Still has nothing to do with drones, especially since those have higher resolution but facts are facts.

The Real Question... (4, Interesting)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346117)

Who do you trust? That is the real question. We are a stones throw away from every aspect of our lives being recorded and monitored. Who do you trust with this information? Not who has the right to it, not what is public or private spaces, who would you hand your life to and say..here..have this.. everything I do, everywhere I go, everything I say, every dime I spend.. have this information of me. Do you trust the police? Would you readily hand this information to them? How about your state government? Maybe the FBI, CIA, NSA or any other 3-letter agency? Do you trust them with every detail of your life? Or maybe the Federal Govt? Do you trust them to use this information wisely and not abusively? The fact is every one of these entities and probably more will very soon have every piece of this information at their fingertips. So the question remains.. who do you trust? And it is being answered for us.

Kahn probably used them back in 1995-ish, too! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346137)

The thing is, ya gotta ask, "Would old King George III of England have used it against the colonists?" If yes, it probably should be banned Constitutionally.

Oh wait, this is Texas. Ummmm, would Santa Anna have used it against Davy Crockett at The Alamo? Yes he would have.

The Jews tighten their grip... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41346273)

... on their 'cattle' (goyim)...

Can't have the 'cattle' fighting back, can we! Can't have the 'cattle' telling other 'cattle' that the Jews own their government, their banking system, tell their army what to do, own their entire media, their news services, and tell the 'cattle' what to think.

Let's keep those borders open so that the Jews will have a brown mass of unrelated, disorganised people to rule over!

But no open borders for 'precious' Israel, right?

No nukes for Iran, but 200 nukes for Israel!

Value vs Cost (3, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346621)

The whole problem with this argument is that the value to the police and companies gathering the data (including paparazzi) is huge. But the cost to the average individual is low in that do you really care that the bridge just kept a record of you driving over it?

So those gathering the data try really hard to make sure the law doesn't interfere with them and the average guy on the street doesn't work too hard to stop them.

Where we the average Joe need to pay real attention is the compiling this data. Suddenly it isn't some useless log wasting space on the Bridge Commission's server but government data compiling that starts making an Orwellian list of who you are, your friends, your associations. This way a politician (say the local Sheriff) can target rivals. You might find that the major donors to a campaign can quickly be found to have mistresses, is gay, or things like business dealings that they don't want public (not bad things just things like a land deal that if public is ruined); nothing illegal just private.

People blah blah about the 2nd amendment but power doesn't sensibly come from a well oiled 9mm except in action movies. It comes from control of information. If you control the flow and content of information then you have real power. If we allow governments and corporations to gather and compile real about us then they will have real power over us.

Quite simply the western world needs to massively restrict what information can be gathered but even more importantly its compilation. As I say it is probably better for all of us if the bridge can figure out usage patterns of drivers. But the FBI should have zero access to this information without a specific warrant for a specific car for a specific case and with probable cause. I am not talking about that the bridge would be allowed to refuse but that by law they would have to refuse.

The reverse needs to be true; we need full access to what our governments and corporations are up to; this would massively reduce the stupidity that they tend to get up to. Again control of information works for us here and oddly enough results in the members of a democracy having power returned to them.

A great example of the hypocrisy of most western governments is that they want to video us with speed/red light cameras, drones, police cameras; yet in nearly every senate, congress, parliament, or council they have strict rules about how the cameras are run. In Canada when someone is speaking the dozen or so people who bothered to show up crowd around behind them so that on camera it looks like they are all there; in reality the parliament is usually nearly empty. They say that any other way would "confuse" the people. Also you basically never get images of them sleeping, picking their noses, or just worst of all just never being there.

In one of the worst councils in North America Halifax has nearly every critical meeting behind closed doors. Again the public can't handle the truth or the discussion is proprietary ( meaning they are discussing a deal with a private company that would make you vomit). The same with the completely worthless Legislature. Their discussions are only released something like 90 years later.

The whole paranoia about governments watching us is simple math. If they can watch us cost effectively they will. If they can stop us from watching them they will.

Re:Value vs Cost (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41348441)

"People blah blah about the 2nd amendment but power doesn't sensibly come from a well oiled 9mm except in action movies"

Power certainly flows from the barrel of a Kalashnikov, which can be used to obtain more powerful weapons from the State itself.

Without the ability to kill your enemies you are helpless. Laws are mere paper constructs, but violence is real and powerful. Ask Qaddafi!
Oh, wait, violence solved that problem too.

The Assadists in Syria made many laws, but Syrians are dealing with that problem by killing Assadists.

Re:Value vs Cost (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#41349993)

The words "I am not a crook" are still echoing as loud as many gunshots and with a whole lot less blood.

Hermit on the Mount (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 2 years ago | (#41346739)

I'll just stay here on my mountain surrounded by my 400 ninja guard pigs and do target practice... Oops that one was a drone. Looked like a skeet to me.

Re:Hermit on the Mount (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41347577)

Oops that one was a drone. Looked like a skeet to me.

Oops, that was a Hellfire. You looked like a terrorist to them.

Drones are entitled to privacy! (1)

DrVomact (726065) | more than 2 years ago | (#41348509)

Report Hints At Privacy Problem of Drones That Can Recognize Faces

Yeah, those drones can be touchy about their privacy. Have you ever seen one with a facebook page? Personally, I would respect their privacy, because having a drone unhappy at you could have lethal consequences.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?