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!

More Drones Set To Use US Air Space

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the pakistan-can't-have-all-the-fun dept.

Security 223

Dupple writes with a quote from the BBC about more testing of Predator drones in U.S. air space: "Tests have been carried out to see whether military drones can mix safely in the air with passenger planes. The tests involved a Predator B drone fitted with radio location systems found on domestic aircraft that help them spot and avoid other planes. The tests will help to pave the way for greater use of drones in America's domestic airspace."

cancel ×

223 comments

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

Who do I have to salute? (5, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | about 2 years ago | (#41829529)

Say farewell forever to even the concept of posse comitatus, limited as it was. Now it is just a Latin phrase you never heard of.

Re:Who do I have to salute? (3, Interesting)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 2 years ago | (#41829567)

So you don't think the Police will have their own drones?

It's just another bear in the air

Speaking of local enforcement drones.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830221)

Logically local and county law enforcement agencies will not be able to deploy high altitude, costly drones and will likely deploy lower cost, low altitude drones. I wonder how long before a collision with a private aircraft occurs? I fly and it scares me that someone, who has little actual flight time, could pilot a drone where he shouldn't and cause a fatality. I am hoping they stay away from incoming and outgoing paths and stay BELOW private airspace. They should be required to follow a similar avoidance protocol that small aircraft abide by for airports. Basically the forbidden space looks like an upside down tiered cake. It's all about the training and I pray they don't skimp on training the local blue boys.

Re:Speaking of local enforcement drones.... (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41830689)

I don't know why there's all this grousing on the message thread! Can't you see?

The title of the submission tells everything needed to know: America is making drones safer!

Re:Who do I have to salute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829691)

Pretty soon, if you want a bit of privacy, better cover your entire parcel with roofing and fencing. Anything visible from the road or sky can be considered in-plain-sight after all.

Re:Who do I have to salute? (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about 2 years ago | (#41830485)

Exactly my thought. It is just a matter of time until some judge decides that the view from the air is considered reasonable public viewing.

Re:Who do I have to salute? (1, Funny)

capnkr (1153623) | about 2 years ago | (#41829693)

You'll have no need for such obscure knowledge in the USSO, Comrade.

Re:Who do I have to salute? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829931)

The lawyers will make sure this has no more appearance of domestic military action than the AR-15 in the trunk of your local squad car.

The persistent surveillance concerns are as much a concern with camera towers and balloons as powered vehicles. Most people don't seem to mind the Wal-Mart Panopticon despite its much greater persistence than a lithium polymer powered flying machine.

Abuse potential:
-Weaponized drones getting hacked or abused by corrupt/human cops(jealous husband).
-Fishing expeditions under vague/broad mission profiles such as "missing child search" leading to search warrants.
-Low-cost enabling more aggressive swarm behavior ala Half-Life 2.
-encrypted/obscurificated video surveillance without a warrant(any application which requires covert video should be based on execution of a warrant). Transparency to consumer wireless video standards greatly reduces abuse potential in a similar way to police scanners.

Bottom line, the general public takes no issue with drones used for first responder & public safety applications. They take issue with surveillance, investigation, and man-hunts.

The first 2 are resolved by making drone video/picture evidence inadmissible in court. Man-hunts are greatly solved by technological limitations(ATM), and prohibiting the use of weapons.

Bottom line, so long as the Supreme Court's don't make any dumb decisions involving the fourth amendment, most fruit from the poison tree will be useless in court. This means we primarily need to resist attempts to make progress down the slippery slope of search without a warrant, and paramilitary police tactics.

Drones were predicted by Orson Wells because they are the inevitable march of technological progress. Drones offer the potential for less violent resolution to conflict which we should all hope would reduce the need for heavy handed tactics. Many cases of police brutality result from an officer's fear for their personal safety. The ability to determine the nature of a threat without infringing on civil liberties will prevent them from assuming the worst case scenerio and over-reacting because of what might-have been.

Re:Who do I have to salute? (1)

Spottywot (1910658) | about 2 years ago | (#41830149)

Drones were predicted by Orson Wells because they are the inevitable march of technological progress. .

H G Wells?

Re:Who do I have to salute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830421)

Sorry, George Orwell.

I didn't get much sleep last night.

Re:Who do I have to salute? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830611)

We will fly no drone (heavy deep overweight labored breathing) before its time.

Re:Who do I have to salute? (5, Informative)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41829943)

Posse comitatus does not prohibit the use of the military against civilians. It only states that congress must authorize it, meaning the local sheriff, mayor, or governor can't call in federal troops. Only congress and the president can do that. So it's still wide open.

Re:Who do I have to salute? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41829993)

Say farewell forever to even the concept of posse comitatus, limited as it was. Now it is just a Latin phrase you never heard of.

Oh, don't you worry your pretty little head about that. The military won't technically do any law enforcement(though it may prove necessary to engage in certain 'domestic Force Protection' activities in order to safeguard DoD assets and personel...), they'll just fire-sale off military hardware under the Law Enforcement Support Office [dla.mil] (unless you trust DoD certs, you'll probably get an SSL warning here) program to various police SWAT teams who will then use it for them.

See, absolutely nothing to worry about. Yes, the police may be logistically indistinguishable from your average upper-developing-world mechanized infantry; but the org chart says they aren't military, so it's all good.

Pew pew (2)

space_jake (687452) | about 2 years ago | (#41829531)

Take that fourth amendment!

Plain View Doctrine (3, Informative)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 2 years ago | (#41829561)

The Plain View Doctrine (or is it "Plane View"?) probably applies here unfortunately.

Re:Plain View Doctrine (1)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#41829709)

Everyone will just need to increase the diameter of their tin foil hats to about 4 to 6 feet, and never leave home without it.

Re:Plain View Doctrine (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41830259)

I think you have your numbers wrong.

You need to increase your hat to 426 feet in radius to cover your property.

Re:Plain View Doctrine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830265)

But does the government have a right to put a camera over your house to monitor your activities? I say we need laws preventing private and public surveillance without the consent of the populace. It's one thing when I put up a security camera around my house; it's another thing when the government does it. Why? Because I can always take mine down.

Re:Pew pew (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829775)

Is the drone stopping and frisking you? Is it taking some kind of infrared scan of your home? An overhead drone can't see anything that isn't in plain view. I'm certainly not saying domestic drones are a good idea, but I'm not seeing how their mere usage could be considered unlawful search and seizure.

Re:Pew pew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829871)

I tend to agree, although it does seem a little creepy. Why do people freak out if we send unmanned drones up to surveil things, but if you stick a guy in the plane suddenly it's OK? Maybe some of it comes from the idea of them miniaturizing them to the size of dragonflies, and giving them enough AI to be autonomous and record everything for later possible use. And also, some people associate 'drones' with hellfire missiles.

Re:Pew pew (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41829971)

It takes more resources for a man to do aerial surveillance than a drone. This extra cost helps prevent regular aerial surveillance from being the norm. If drones, storage, and processing power become cheap enough, it would be easy to keep a record of everyone's movements. I am not saying the drone tech is inherently evil but the government likes to abuse its power.

Re:Pew pew (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41830055)

Why do people freak out if we send unmanned drones up to surveil things, but if you stick a guy in the plane suddenly it's OK?

Most of the protection of your privacy is economic, rather than legal or technological. A guy in a plane or a helicopter is Not Cheap, per hour, which creates a sort of 'de facto probable cause' requirement, since the cops can only justify sending one up if they think that they'll find something worth finding.

Drones are cheaper(still pretty expensive now, getting less so), which means that the economic disincentives to surveillance fall and people enjoy less actual protection from surveillance(since the strict legal protections are markedly lower than the historical economic ones).

Re:Pew pew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830423)

That may be true, but it is really tangential to the argument. The economic viability of the method of observation should not be the measure by whether you determine whether it is acceptable or not. It either is, or it isn't.

Re:Pew pew (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41830655)

The economic viability determines if people have a reason to care. What's the point campaigning against the government (or corporations, or your neighbour) doing something they can't afford to do it anyway?

Re:Pew pew (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830003)

same as GPS tracking in my book. was just fine for someone to follow you around, they couldn't do that to everyone due to manpower limits.

Police cannot have 5 planes wandering around just looking and recording. They could have 5 drones.

What is OK for a person to do becomes no so OK when it is automated.

Re:Pew pew (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830363)

Technically, it almost certainly does have infrared sensors. It just wouldn't be much good otherwise.

This will be important... (5, Funny)

RobinH (124750) | about 2 years ago | (#41829545)

Eventually other countries will have drone capability, and will be flying them over US soil. It's important that we develop the technology to do it safely. ;)

Re:This will be important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829623)

WTF? No they won't be flying them over US soil!

Re:This will be important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829795)

Wooosh!

The sound of a joke/foreign drone going over your head. Take your pick.

Re:This will be important... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829831)

WHOOOSHHH.

  Watch out! It's a joke drone!

Re:This will be important... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830069)

I just laughed to death

Re:This will be important... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829881)

WTF? No they won't be flying them over US soil!

(Oh, but the irony of us Americans thinking this is perfectly acceptable to do...to others.)

Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829549)

This will create a huge burden on hunters aiming for fowl.

hate my country (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829551)

I am starting to really hate my country. This is crap.

AlphaA

Re:hate my country (3, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | about 2 years ago | (#41829719)

Your country is not the one putting this forth. The current set of "leaders" is. Vote them out next Tuesday.

Re:hate my country (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829789)

Your country is not the one putting this forth. The current set of "leaders" is. Vote them out next Tuesday.

2008 called, they want their optimism back

Re:hate my country (4, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | about 2 years ago | (#41829835)

Your country is not the one putting this forth. The current set of "leaders" is. Vote them out next Tuesday.

2008 called, they want their optimism back

Then they too should vote for someone other than the person/group they voted into office back in '08. Because in the past 4 years, we've seen privacy and rights and wealth dwindle to a fraction of what they were prior...

Re:hate my country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829873)

Yes, because the Rs hate the police state.

Re:hate my country (3, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | about 2 years ago | (#41829951)

It was not I who made this about "Rs" or "Ds" - that is your claim, and yours alone. I say vote out the incumbents, scramble things up, break up the good-ol-boy system of this 2 party hegemony we have.

Re:hate my country (3, Insightful)

mjr167 (2477430) | about 2 years ago | (#41830353)

Vote for someone without a D or an R next to their name. Don't vote for the D because you hate the R or vice versa.

Re:hate my country (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41830667)

But then the wrong letter might win.

Re:hate my country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830669)

Re:hate my country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830437)

I like this, being in power too long will only corrupt.

Re:hate my country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830535)

And replace them with what? Libertarian crack pots? If I see a decent alternative I'll be happy to vote for them. And I guarantee all you Obama haters that Romney would be even worse with regards to police state creep.

Re:hate my country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829937)

Because in the past 4 years, we've seen privacy and rights and wealth dwindle to a fraction of what they were prior...

...which were a fraction of what they were in 2001. Those rights and wealth have been dwindling for quite a while now and the only people who seem to mind are seen as being in the same boat as Alex Jones.

Re:hate my country (2)

oobayly (1056050) | about 2 years ago | (#41830077)

Did you warn them about Sandy? Bet you didn't you bastard.

Re:hate my country (1)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41829859)

And what, exactly, do you expect that to accomplish? How will voting for the other party make your wishes on this specific topic known?

Re:hate my country (1)

capnkr (1153623) | about 2 years ago | (#41829925)

Nowhere did I mention members of a particular party. Rather, I mentioned those currently in office. Incumbents, IOW. It would help things too if such persons as yourself would stop playing party politics. Sitting pols may not vote in 'term limits', but we as voters can *create* them. Start now. Have a good day.

Re:hate my country (1)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41830119)

So your solution to fixing things you dislike is to keep voting out whoever is currently in power? I don't even know what you mean by me playing "party politics" exactly, I was just saying that voting for a certain party is an extremely limited way to express your opinion on the whole range of issues that exist in any country. Voting for one of two parties accomplishes almost exactly nothing.

I don't feel an affiliation with any party in any political system (plus I don't even live in the US).

Re:hate my country (1)

Mephistophocles (930357) | about 2 years ago | (#41830631)

Voting for one of two parties accomplishes almost exactly nothing.

Actually, voting at all in the US accomplishes exactly nothing, since the two leading parties are nearly indistinguishable, and one of them will always win. A vote for someone other than the leading candidates is a complete waste of time since that vote won't even be noticed. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to vote at all in the US election; it's a rigged, forgone conclusion, with the same mathematical odds as the damn lottery (assuming votes are actually counted at all, which may be a stupid assumption). These poor folks who think that the people still have the power to change something with a vote are as deluded as the poor sots that think they'll win $500 million dollars by putting their kids' birthdays on a lottery ticket.

Re:hate my country (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41830291)

So I should vote for someone who is even worse from my point of view?

That makes no sense.

Re:hate my country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830065)

Yes, the Republican dominated Congress needs to go! Vote these warmongering profiteering nut-jobs out!

Re:hate my country (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41830159)

You're laboring under the mistaken assumption that the two major parties have any significant disagreement about civil liberties protections. The proof that they don't is that neither of their presidential candidates has said a word about it.

If you want to protect civil liberties, you're going to have to vote for a minor party candidate. And that means you're going to lose, but at least you won't be voting against constitutional protections.

Re:hate my country (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#41830255)

If people were to consistently vote incumbents out of office, the incentive for trampling on civil liberties would be reduced. As a matter of fact it would offer significant incentive for elected officials to oppose trampling on civil liberties since they would know that they would likely be private citizens again shortly, subject to the same abuses that other private citizens were subject to.

Re:hate my country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830441)

As a matter of fact it would offer significant incentive for elected officials to oppose trampling on civil liberties since they would know that they would likely be private citizens again shortly,

That's not much of a threat when they can just retire or line up some cushy job through one of their lobbyists.

subject to the same abuses that other private citizens were subject to.

Former elected officials are still addressed by their title after leaving office and continue to command a higher degree of respect. The idea that they are corralled back in with the rest of the rabble is kind of naive.

Re:hate my country (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41830477)

You're assuming, incorrectly, that the power of elected officials to avoid being treated like everyone else disappears once they leave office. For proof to the contrary, I give you war criminal Dick Cheney.

Specifically, Cheney proudly said on national television that he ordered waterboarding of prisoners, which the US declared to be a crime against humanity in 1945.

Re:hate my country (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#41830659)

...waterboarding of prisoners, which the US declared to be a crime against humanity in 1945.

citation needed

Re:hate my country (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#41830711)

How do you figure? If incumbents were consistently voted out of office then they would have no incentive to try to please their constituents, and even more incentive to please their powerful, unelected sponsors to reap rewards after they've served their single term. To even get in the race as a "credible" candidate you need to have the backing of some powerful "behind the scenes" actors - do you really think backing a new sycophant for every election would be anything but a minor inconvenience?

Or perhaps you're suggesting that the consistent turnover would send the message to politicians that they had better start actually looking out for *our* interests. It's possible - but imagine you're the sort of wheeler-and-dealer that can get sponsored to high office in the first place, which way are you going to gamble? Try to please the constituents while aggravating your sponsors in the hope of breaking the pattern and getting reelected, or please your sponsors for a guaranteed payoff and probable sponsorship to some other lucrative position?

The only ways I can see of breaking the cycle is a massive grassroots campaign to throw out the incumbents in favor of elect independent/minor party candidates, and or somehow managing to seize popular control of one of the major parties (yeah, I don't see how that could happen).

Re:hate my country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830351)

You don't get to choose the leaders, but you have the choice of one of two parties.
So would it be the beef or the chicken drown in the same gravy train? They both smell and taste the same.

what could go wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829557)

they get hacked or something?

Re:what could go wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829657)

Nah... they all get their command-controls funnelled through Twitter.
What can go wrong there?
#Drone5347 TurnLeft

Re:what could go wrong (2)

stewsters (1406737) | about 2 years ago | (#41829699)

Just don't open any ports and hacking is much harder. Also don't install a web browser with java and flash plugins on your aircraft.

Re:what could go wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830709)

You'll want some way to control it yourself. So there will be an open communication channel.

If you don't think the police already have drones (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 2 years ago | (#41829639)

You should sit in on a tasking meeting

Re:If you don't think the police already have dron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829799)

tell us more

Re:If you don't think the police already have dron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829827)

You should sit in on a tasking meeting

Oh, we know. It's just that we don't agree with it. Is that so hard to understand?

First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829643)

It's weird how "Drone" has become the word of choice among the general public. Maybe this was the inevitable backlash against the acronym politics. UAV, UAS, RPA, etc.

3 acronyms for essentially the same thing for no other reason than cultural acceptance by the audience. UAV seemed like it was gaining traction and then the switch was made to UAS in order to get the focus away from the flashy air-frames and on to the total system as an integrated package. This distinction at first seems to undermine the push for platform agnostic inter-operable systems. Maybe it has streamlined purchase of ground control station equipment with monies appropriated for the Unmaned Aerial Vehicles?

Can they mix with airplanes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829649)

Where they have been flying hasn't had passenger airplanes?

Welcome to the.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829675)

Home of the brave.

"Radio location system" (3, Informative)

Solozerk (1003785) | about 2 years ago | (#41829815)

The "radio location system" they mention is probably ADS-B, which emits the position, speed, heading, etc... of planes every second.

Interestingly enough, you can listen in on those with a 20$ tv tuner (software defined radio):
http://www.irrational.net/2012/08/06/tracking-planes-for-20-or-less/ [irrational.net]

So I guess the good news is at least that we'll be able to tell when and where the drones are flying... if this is abused enough, once could also imagine taking them done with DIY drones.

Altitude? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 2 years ago | (#41829977)

Not every plane is equipped to receive those signals and not every plane is required to transmit those signals. I have friends whose planes don't even have a battery / electrical system (they use magnetic compass and vacuum gauges). So long as the drones stay above say 30,000 feet and takeoff / land only at certain airports I suppose they might not interfere.

Re:Altitude? (2)

JustNiz (692889) | about 2 years ago | (#41830229)

I like your idea. The whole point of a drone is to (quietly) fly low and slow to see stuff. Having a law that requires drones to stay above 30k ft will basically render them useless. Good.

Re:"Radio location system" (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#41829981)

5 months before the ADS-B detector is added in to every radar detector and police scanner on the market.

Re:"Radio location system" (1)

Solozerk (1003785) | about 2 years ago | (#41830017)

once could also imagine taking them done with DIY drones.

Meant to write "one could also imagine taking them down", of course...

We need Hope & Change now more than ever!! (3, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 2 years ago | (#41829817)

<sarcasm>This type of thing won't happen when Barack Obama is president!</sarcasm>

Re:We need Hope & Change now more than ever!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830573)

I'm sure Romney will roll this back because the right-wing hates police states.

Who didn't see this coming? (2)

AntiBasic (83586) | about 2 years ago | (#41829843)

They told me if I voted for McCain, we'd see drones blanket our domestic airspace... and they were right.

Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackable (4, Interesting)

kbonin (58917) | about 2 years ago | (#41829849)

If domestic drones will be allowed in domestic civilian airspace as long as they carry active ADS-B transponders, then there are a number of receiver+software packages that would enable them to be tracked by anyone with some tech skills.

Google "ADS-B receiver", one example: http://www.scannermaster.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=28-661518 [scannermaster.com]

Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about 2 years ago | (#41830049)

Partially, but many if not most aircraft dont implement it yet. Its especially unlikely that any general aviation aircraft (think cessna 172 and similar) will have it, and these are the aircraft that are most likely to be flying in the same airspace as a drone.

ADS_B is part of FAA's Nexgen project. They will only require most aircraft to carry it by 2020.

Personally I think this test will be a foregone conclusion for political reasons regardless of how actually safe it is.
 

Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab (4, Interesting)

duinsel (935058) | about 2 years ago | (#41830079)

No need for skillz, there are websites [flightradar24.com] that track stuff for you. (At least their coverage for non-US flights is ADS-B based, real time, and collected from private contributing scanners AFAIK, US flights go through FAA)

Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 2 years ago | (#41830137)

If I were the military, then I would argue that the drones are able to avoid any aircraft, and therefore do not need to carry a transponder themselves.

Re:Domestic Drones w/ ADS-B transponders = trackab (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about 2 years ago | (#41830587)

Anyone up for building an anti-drone that homes in on ADS-B transponder signals? Takes a drone to kill a drone!

Cue the bootlickers.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829865)

Reminding us all how kooky we are, because the military and police have already been flying these things around us for years, and we're tinfoil-hat nutters if we don't like it.
 
It's like saying that since I've already been punching you in the face for twenty minutes, I've established that it's OK and I shouldn't be compelled by any assault laws to stop it. Don't your knees hurt yet?

Secret Bergman Handshakes. (1)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41829913)

JOE: Ask the cop on the corner...

DC: Ask the cop in the grocery store...

JOE: Ask the cop in the woodpile...

DC: Ask the cop on the rooftop...

JOE: Ask that cop that's knockin' at your back door...

SOUND: Knocking.

DC: Ask him!

--
BMO

Just Saying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829939)

http://www.flightradar24.com/
where will they fit?

Pilots Soon To Go (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41829945)

Make no mistake. As soon as the body of safety data gets large enough we will see the elimination of pilots on commercial air craft. Once it is established that the bots drones are safer than human pilots another trade will vanish. Commercial trucking is on the edge of eliminating human drivers already. The safty record looks good and computized drivers do not break rules, speed, or go mental from the boredom.
                    The purpose of technology has always been to eliminate human labor. The catch is that we have no social structure at hand to take care of the many millions being displaced by job losses due to better technologies.

Re:Pilots Soon To Go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830303)

The purpose of technology has always been to eliminate human labor. The catch is that we have no social structure at hand to take care of the many millions being displaced by job losses due to better technologies.

We've always had such a social structure. It's called "leisure." When there's no work remaining to be done, play. Learn. Eat. Fuck. Be Hedonism-bot.

Re:Pilots Soon To Go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830693)

Try unemployment for a few years and let us know how "leisurely" it is.

Drone Pro/Con (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 2 years ago | (#41830005)

Pro: A drone could deliver you a pizza from your favorite joint across town during rush hour in five minutes.
Con: It could also deliver hellfire missiles if you don't tip the operator.

What, no "skynet" tag? (4, Insightful)

oracleofbargth (16602) | about 2 years ago | (#41830033)

Am I the only person who is surprised that this story hasn't been tagged with "skynet"?

Re:What, no "skynet" tag? (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 2 years ago | (#41830701)

It was, but then sky--t censored it. Oops, I forgot to post anonymously, I can hear the drone coming now...

Aircraft sans transponders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830067)

Ballons, gliders, hang gliders, paragliders, antique airplanes, light sport aircraft... lawnchairs... weatherballoons.

Politics will decide it not safety. (2)

JustNiz (692889) | about 2 years ago | (#41830111)

Personally I think this test will be a foregone conclusion for political reasons that drones will be deemed useable (even over cities) regardless of how actually safe it is.
Its especially ironic considering the current air law prohibits pilots flying 'experimental' class aircraft or ultralights over cities or any built-up area.

Re:Politics will decide it not safety. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830613)

Just waiting for some clever citizen engineer to build a drone-killer. Maybe make it out of wood to keep it off radar. All it needs to do is place itself in the path of the drone and *boom*.

When will the first mid-air collision occur (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41830319)

Who's fault will it be? How many people will it kill?

Nevermind the whole 4th amendment and all the other privacy implications, these are dangerous!

They say "once ADS-B is widely deployed", unless ADS-B is 100% deployed and 100% reliable, these things will run into other aircraft. I know there is a mandate by the FAA to have the whole fleet of aircraft in the US be ADS-B out by 2020, but that won't happen. Some aircraft don't have any electrical system (IE sailplanes), so they will be exempted from the mandate, while flying outside of controlled airspace and won't have ADS-B out. See and avoid will work for manned aircraft, but not for drones (who is seeing).

See and avoid doesn't work for manned aircraft 100%, automated systems don't work 100%. There is no good reason to put unmanned aircraft in civilian airspace. The cost argument fails, since they cost as much or more than light aircraft. The danger argument fails, since they are dangerous to everyone but the pilot (when they crash where do they land?).

Spookey times we live in.

They are flying (2)

raind (174356) | about 2 years ago | (#41830361)

Around Lake St. Clair, from SANG

http://www.127wg.ang.af.mil/ [af.mil]

Super! (2)

endus (698588) | about 2 years ago | (#41830377)

Because we TOTALLY need drones in domestic airspace to protect us against ______________.

Re:Super! (1)

bobcat7677 (561727) | about 2 years ago | (#41830741)

They will find a target. It's only a matter of time before a hellfire missile is used on a domestic target. And as others have said, it won't matter who you vote for next week.

Legitimate uses of drones (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 2 years ago | (#41830787)

Everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that drones will be used for law enforcement. That's a valid concern, of course, but one can imagine legitimate uses of unmanned aircraft:
  • crop dusting
  • search and rescue / emergency response
  • precision agriculture [wikipedia.org]
  • communication relays
  • weather monitoring
  • wildlife research
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>