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!

Unmanned Aerial Drones Coming Soon Above U.S.

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the the-eye-in-the-sky dept.

841

cnet-declan writes "Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been flying over Iraq and Afghanistan, but now the Bush administration wants to use them for domestic surveillance. A top Homeland Security official told Congress today, according to this CNET News.com article, that: "We need additional technology to supplement manned aircraft surveillance and current ground assets to ensure more effective monitoring of United States territory." One county in North Carolina is already using UAVs to monitor public gatherings. But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers? A pilot's association is worried."

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

Israel does this already... (5, Informative)

mongoose(!no) (719125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022911)

At major events in Israel, they already use unmanned blimps to monitor it from a distance. If they can keep it out of commericial airspace, it shouldn't be a problem.

Re:Israel does this already... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022934)

O RLY? Well, if the hideous Semites undertake it, it must be a worthy undertaking!

Juden raus; plzkthx.

Re:Israel does this already... (1)

Amonimous Coward (778781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022991)

Unmaned blimps are far more fuel efficient than unmaned planes. Plus they can stay airborne for more time. Why don't they use blimps all along ?

I think blimps would be ideal for setting up wireless connectivity for a wide area. Just because some stupid blimp exploded, humankind almost does not consider the possibility of using blimps anymore, not even with new technology that would make it not flammable.

UAVs vastly superior to blimps (4, Interesting)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023093)

Unmaned blimps are far more fuel efficient than unmaned planes. Plus they can stay airborne for more time. Why don't they use blimps all along ?

Because you can't reroute blimps to get a closer look at something very easily.

Funny this article gets posted while I'm in the middle of writing a proposal for follow-on funding on my research into UAV control algorithms...

Endurance is a concern. Collision avoidance is a concern. But UAVs offer incredible surveillance opportunities that stationary sensors just can't match.

  • First, blimps are pretty damn obvious. Small UAVs (SUAVs) aren't nearly as noticable so there's the ability to conduct covert surveillance. Very useful if you're using the videofeed from an SUAV to direct police to intruders.
  • UAVs can be rerouted to obtain favorable viewing geometries. Suspect went around the corner so you lose clear line of sight? Just move the sensor to another position. Same with obscuration due to smoke, fog, etc. UAVs give you the ability to pick your line of sight.
  • While SUAVs can be used for covert surveillance, they can also be used to make it very obvious to a vandal or other petty criminal that they are being observed. Want to scare off the suspect? Just have the UAV follow him really conspicuously. Eventually he'll hear the motor of the plane and notice this thing is tailing him.
  • SUAVs are reasonably cheap, too. Some of these models are little more than model aircraft with sensors glued onto them.

I could go on and on but I need to get back to writing my UAV proposal. UAVs are one of the hottest military technologies these days. It's not surprising that the commercial and civilian sector is starting to take a look at how these maturing drones can be used to solve their problems.

GMD

Re:Israel does this already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023107)

And what exactly is commercial airspace? Is the area around my local municipal airport commercial airspace? What about the low altitude routes I fly as a private pilot? In fact "commercial airspace" to me would mean controlled airspace, which is almost all airspace over the US above 700 feet above ground. The issue here is that another pilot can see and avoid an aircraft but these UAVs have no capability to monitor the air around them for collision avoidance. I say they should be banned entirely until they have a feasable way to do their part in avoiding other air traffic. Having transponders so they can be tracked accurately by air traffic control isn't enough as I am not in contact with ATC during most of my flights.

Consider this, an 8 pound bird can severely damage a light airplane. A collision with a 30 pound UAV would kill me, my passengers, and whoever happens to get in the way of my wreckage impacting the ground.

Wryness (3, Interesting)

(1+-sqrt(5))*(2**-1) (868173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022913)

The effects of surveillant tyranny are subtle; amongst the Soviets, for example, lorded a pervasive wryness. An old joke ran:
The Bolsheviks liberated us at last from liberty itself.
Much more worrisome, therefore, than the evidence of surveillant tyranny, is the wryness of ensuing “in Soviet America” jokes.

Re: Wryness (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022969)

Democracy gives the people the government they deserve.

Re: Wryness (1)

MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023071)

good thing this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, then. if only someone would actually dust off the old thing and read it once in a while.

Re:Wryness (1)

KBAegis (961391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022975)

As Big Brother takes to the skies: Karl Roves Republican's have liberated us at last from liberty itself. ;)

Re:Wryness (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023003)

what about being liberated in liberia? eh?

Re:Wryness (1)

rbannon (512814) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023151)

In a historical note, Americans (that means US citizens) have become their worst enemy (that means the Soviet Union). Stalin would have been a proud, if only he were an American.

Now you won't be considered paranoid.... (1)

countach (534280) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022916)

Now you won't be considered paranoid if you believe there are black helicopters outside your window observing your every move. It might be true!

Woe oh woe... how will we tell the real lunies from the fake ones, if they really ARE watching you?

Re:Now you won't be considered paranoid.... (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022933)

Like bush already didn't give us enough reasons to be paranoid about our phone lines. how will you tell the loonies from the non? well, the ones who put bush in the white house = loony!

Re:Now you won't be considered paranoid.... (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023066)

Hey!!!! That secret webcam in the ladies' restroom (or bathroom, or spa, or school showers) isn't a voyeur's dream-come-true.

It's actually part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program!

Tomorrow's Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022917)

Baltimore to be renamed "City 17"

What's that in the sky? (1)

breadboy21 (856238) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022919)

It's a bird!! It's a plane!!! No, it's a UAV!!!

Re:What's that in the sky? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023005)

I wonder if when you wrote that you actually thought you were making a great comment.

So they come in our bedroom windows... (1)

solafide (845228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022920)

So now the government will be able to look right in our windows and see what we are doing most of the time. And thus it'll only be a small step to microchipping us all. Whee. I for one welcome our new governmental overlords.

Re:So they come in our bedroom windows... (1)

KBAegis (961391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023014)

Oh, come ON! There will be at least 3 years (Give or take 3) of revolution for us to die in before it gets THAT bad.

Well you know that old saying (5, Insightful)

bogie (31020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022922)

Boil a frog slowly...

My new sig seems even more appropriate than usual.

Re:Well you know that old saying (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023046)

Um, no I don't know that old saying.

WTF are you saying?!?!

Re:Well you know that old saying (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023086)

If you put a frog into a pot of boiling water - it will do all it can to escape.

However, if you put it in a pot of cold water and heat it on the stove, the frog will happily sit there until it boils to death.

(Or so I heard)

The GP was refering to the gradual erosion of our civil rights.

Re:Well you know that old saying (5, Informative)

Txiasaeia (581598) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023172)

This is an urban myth [snopes.com] , but I get your point.

Re:Well you know that old saying (1)

chrispycreeme (550607) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023089)

The saying goes that if your throw a frog into boiling water he will jump right back out. But, if you put him in cold water and slowly raise the tempurature he will sit happily till he is cooked. I don't know if this is true or not but I think it's sposed ta be one of them meta-4's or maybe one of them Smilm- Slimel- Slilmelimelies..

Re:Well you know that old saying (5, Informative)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023108)

Place a frog in a pan of cold water. He doesn't hop out.
Place a frog in a pan of boiling hot water. He immeadiately hops out.
Place a frog in a pan of cold water, and slowly raise the temperature to boiling. He remains in the pan until being boiled to death.

Place a person in a peaceful, law-abiding (gov. & civilian) society. He doesn't speak out.
Place a person in a totalitarian nightmare. He fights back.
Place a person in a law-abiding society and slowly remove his civil rights bit by bit. He doesn't fight back because "it doesn't affect me" until he is living in a totalitarian nightmare with no rights and no one to back him up.

huzzah (4, Funny)

MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022925)

hail skynet.

what happens? (5, Funny)

RedACE7500 (904963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022927)

But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers? Hilarity ensues...

Re:what happens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022967)

They miss you over here [fark.com]

Re:what happens? (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023081)

Oops, I thought you said "Hillary ensues..."

Re:what happens? (-1, Flamebait)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023185)

I work for someone who makes unmanned drones for a living.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some Slashdotters belive anything they hear

Re:what happens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023201)

But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers?


I didn't know these surveillance crafts will have passangers on them!

"Security" makes it all OK? (5, Insightful)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022929)

First it was the domestic wiretap issue; the administration not only didn't deny doing it, they flat-out flaunted it. Now they want to put unmanned drones in the air to watch God-knows-what. There's no longer even a pretense, a facade, even the slightest attempt to hide the surveillance society.

I thought that actions like appropriating the military for civilian law enforcement, spying on US citizens within the US, etc. were illegal. Why doesn't anyone seem to give a shit anymore?

There are a number of reasons, actually. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022995)

Nobody in America gives a shit for several reasons.

The first is the same bread-and-circuses problem that plagued the Roman Empire. As long as they have beer and football, Mountain Dew and XBox, or their cell phones and MTV, most Americans are quite content.

The second is a lousy mass media. Many people who might take a stand against anti-freedom activities such as this aren't even aware of the issue, just because it isn't reported well by major news outlets.

The third is a lack of understanding. Low-quality history lessons in schools, often teaching what amounts to idealistic propaganda, have resulted in many youths (and now adults) not even being able to comprehend the issues at hand. They are unaware of how such 'security' measures were the hallmarks of numerous totalitarian regimes, just in the 20th century alone.

It's a multifaceted problem, and no solution is readily available.

Re:There are a number of reasons, actually. (1)

max99ted (192208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023130)

It's a multifaceted problem, and no solution is readily available.

I'd say move North but things seems to be slipping [intheirownwords.ca] here as well.

Contrarian view (2, Insightful)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023154)

The first is the same bread-and-circuses problem that plagued the Roman Empire. As long as they have beer and football, Mountain Dew and XBox, or their cell phones and MTV, most Americans are quite content.

Funny you should mention beer, football, cell phones, mass media, and MTV in your post about why UAV surveillance is evil.

Most people are disgusted by the post-SuperBowl riots that envitably ensue when a few celebrating football fans, drunk with beer, start using the occasion as an opportunity to cause mayhem. UAVs monitoring a crowd can make sure that troublemakers are quickly identified and subdued by police before they incite a violent riot.

MTV and other youth-oriented mass media are fairly blatant in their encouragement of young people to protest the G8 summit or the meeting of the World Bank by going ape shit. Gone are the days of peaceful protests. Leaders of political groups have realized that causing mayhem is one sure-fire way of attracting attention (positive or negative -- it doesn't matter) to their cause and making life tough for their political enemies. Attempts by police to remove troublemakers from the crowd of mostly-peaceful demonstrators is foiled as highly-organized groups use cell phones to adapt to police movements in real-time.

It's a multifaceted problem, and no solution is readily available.

Oh, indeed it is a multifaceted problem. It's not clear to me, however, that you have considered the other facet of surveillance and what it means in today's society. Technology is a tool. It can be used for good or for evil.

GMD

MOD UP (at least don't mod down) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023195)

It's nice to hear someone questioning slashdot's groupthink once in awhile. He made a legit attempt to contribute something to the discussion. If you disagree with this guy, post a response. Don't do that 'overrated' crap.

Re:There are a number of reasons, actually. (1)

SteeldrivingJon (842919) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023162)


"Many people who might take a stand against anti-freedom activities such as this aren't even aware of the issue, just because it isn't reported well by major news outlets."

Or, more likely, you get Fox News and right wingers or spineless suckups at other networks who will parrot the government's empty rationalizations, and push the idea that if you oppose the institution of a police state, you're supporting the terrorists.

Everybody is blinded (4, Insightful)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023152)

Everybody is blinded by the media and by schools. Teachers are threatened by the government, and are forced to spread the propaganda to our children, and it is even starting to happen in Universities. Patriotism is being turned into extremism. History teachers and professors know about it, people who read the news from free media outlets such as this one know about it, but the masses cannot even fathom the idea that our government is corrupt and are fixated into this mindset that if a superior (President, Media, Retail Salesman) tells them something, that they must obey and follow. Any out-speak or saying different to them is seen as uncivilized and outrageous.

Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023170)

they flat-out flaunted it

One proven winning tactic of the political game is to publicly repeat a false theory, with emotion and indisputable dedication, so that a significant (hopefully vocal) percentage of the population adopts and touts the theory as its own.

What we are observing is one of the fundamental building blocks of organized coercion (government): large-scale exploitation of group think [wikipedia.org] .

They're already here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022935)

While in Marfa Texas, near the Mexico border, there was an odd black dot that didn't move in the sky. When I got to the Observatory I took a look at it from one of the sight seeing binoculers. It was one of the DEA Drug blimps.

Re:They're already here... (2, Funny)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023008)

Hmm, you know fuel prices are high when the unmarked black helicopters have been replaced with unmarked black blimps :-).

We can't control our own borders... (4, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022937)

We can't control our own borders but we will use tech like this to monitor our own citizens...

Anyone else find that just a little weird?

Re:We can't control our own borders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022960)

We can control our borders. We just choose not to.

Re:We can't control our own borders... (3, Insightful)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022961)

We can't control our own borders but we will use tech like this to monitor our own citizens...

Anyone else find that just a little weird?


The people in charge can control the borders. They just choose not to.

Re:We can't control our own borders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022994)

The only thing I find weird is the fact that your anti-semetic nazi ass hasn't been booted off slashdot!

Re:We can't control our own borders... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023009)

Please log in so I can know who you are.

Re:We can't control our own borders... (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023040)

It's not me [slashdot.org] ;-)

In response to the original question, spying on our own citizens is framed as a national security issue (so it immediately gets at least 300 votes in the House and 70 votes in the Senate). Border control isn't. I could spout off theories as to why this is, but I don't want to stray off topic.

Re:We can't control our own borders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023052)

What are you prepared to do about this situation, Mr. Aldredge? It obviously seems to trouble you, as an American citizen. But are you actually willing to take a stand against this? Will you at least be writing your various politicial representatives, even if doing so has no effect? Will you be protesting in public?

We often hear from Americans that the French are "pussies" or "wimps". But look what we observed this week: millions of French citizens protested against government action they disagreed with. Those people took to the streets to let the politicians know they were wrong regarding labor laws. That is what truly protects liberty. Keep in mind that these drones are a far more serious issue! But we won't hear a peep out of most Americans.

Re:We can't control our own borders... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023067)

How do you know I haven't already done so?

Re:We can't control our own borders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023112)

How do you know I haven't already done so?

I don't. But it is safe to assume that most Americans won't do anything about this issue. I would hope that you are not like most Americans.

If you have actually done something, let us know exactly what it was that you did. It would be of great benefit if you were to post the correspondence you have sent to your representatives. Post a transcript of a telephone call or meeting, if you did either of those. Tell us about any protests you have attended. Others may find it beneficial to make use of such material in their own efforts to stand against this attack on the liberty of the American citizenry.

Re:We can't control our own borders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023186)

DShitredge avoids Aerial Dones by simply never leaving his parent's basement. So long as nobody stops him from going online and bitching about Jews, he won't do shit.

Hollywood, anybody? (1)

thc69 (98798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022938)

The imagery brought to mind by this makes me think of a handicapped dude in a Pontiac Aztek...or, uh, something.

more effective monitoring of United States (1)

jmnormand (941909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022944)

some how the bush admin using the phrase "more effective monitoring of United States territory" does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy. since the major advantage to uavs is they dont risk troop in warzones i dont really see the benefits for domestic surveillance. probably useful for boarder patrol i supose.

Re:more effective monitoring of United States (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022999)

the major advantage to uavs is they dont risk troop in warzones

Drones don't get tired and make mistakes - if remotely piloted the operator can swap out as frequently as needed with frested personnel. For missions that don't require on-site decision making by a pilot, or neck-bending maneuvering to engage other aircraft, a drone is extremely cost effective.

Re:more effective monitoring of United States (1)

jbrader (697703) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023030)

frested = fresh + rested

Re:more effective monitoring of United States (1)

Bjorn_Redtail (848817) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023054)

"neck-bending maneuvering to engage other aircraft" Which is similar to the neck bending needed to avoid other aircraft. Which is why AOPA is concerned that domestic use of these unmanned aircraft will interfere with general aviation.

Re:more effective monitoring of United States (1)

bhodikhan (894485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023056)

Oh no. I hope they aren't gonna arm 'em with Hellfire missles. Can you imagine the mistakes then!

Big Brother Watching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022945)

Appealing to the conspiracy theorists: here we go, with an extension of Big Brother Watching(tm), where other activities such as "war on terrorism" could be viewed as a ruse by which to implement these very sorts of things that, perhaps not on the outset, serve to dimish our freedoms in clever ways - and we, the public have not much choice - where the larger percent accepts it, like pigs to the slaughter.

Re:Big Brother Watching (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023199)

While the whole big brother fear crowd CAN get out of hand - THIS is reason to be concrned, especially if it gets out of hand (and a history lesson might teach you a thing or two about it almost always doing so) - I don't want to be watched. If I got nothing to hide, they don't have any reason to watch me. PERIOD... sheeple.... baaa baaaaaaaah!

Not long now... (1)

Bandraginus (901166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022953)

before they hand these drones over to the Ministry of Truth.

They Live: We Sleep (1)

Baldrson (78598) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022962)

This reminds me of the scene in "They Live [netflix.com] " where the protaganist finds some sunglasses that lets him see through the hypnotic haze created by the "capitalist" aliens and and finds there's this little UFO shaped thing following him around with a camera trained on him -- which he then blows away with a shotgun.

Re:They Live: We Sleep (1)

MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023058)

What needs to happen for us to wake up?

Re:They Live: We Sleep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023109)

uh... sunglasses, duh?

Boob watching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022964)

Where can I apply for the job to monitor the live feed from drones protecting nude beaches from terrorist attacks?

targeting practice? (1)

cabinetsoft (923481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022968)

I dare all US gun owner citizens to targetting practice on them... otherwise maybe they'll find the WMD not found in Iraq.

Re:targeting practice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023041)

I thought that too, but these things fly 3-5 miles up. Just spotting one would be a bit of a challenge, and at that range telling it apart from a civilian craft's going to be pretty hard unless you know what you're doing.

I'd suggest against asking the average gun owner to shoot at them. Unless you've got a really good rifle and aim, you're not going to hit them, and they're probably not going to be hurt much by most civilian rifles anyway unless you get a lucky shot, and then it'll probably just crash into someone's house.

Dumb drones, eh? (1)

d.corri (952075) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022972)

The Bush administration seems to be full of those.

Re:Dumb drones, eh? (1)

d.corri (952075) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023037)

The real dumb drones are the people who voted for that guy.

Yes, I just replied to my own post. Nobody else was going to, anyway.

UAV's, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15022979)

Yea they use UAV's in iraq and yea they work for monitoring a few things. Typicaly they are used for following convoys, because typicaly its difcult to keep track of a single vehicle. Now that the war has become urban they just dont use them as much anymore. What kind of real intel can you get on something flying over it at 12,000 feet? The fact of the matter is the UAV technology is not up to snuff for what the police would want to use it for. Its idea that sounds really good on paper, but to impliment is a diffrent story.

UAVs whan? (1)

zobier (585066) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022987)

According to the Weekly Piracy Report [icc-ccs.org] there are UAVs watching our oceans, so what makes you think they're not already watching us too?

Unmanned Brother (1)

overacid (604542) | more than 8 years ago | (#15022992)

Big, Bushy, Brother is watching

Should this be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023000)

..in Your Rights Online?

Homeland... and the future... (3, Insightful)

ShadowNetworks (915967) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023010)

The US is made of thousands upon thousands of immigrant. Very few of us are native. The current political and powers that be want everyone watched 24x7. It's scary to think that we'd spy on our own citizens just to protect them. But if we allow such things as domestic USVs, what's next? Tracking chips implanted in everyone? I don't know where this is all headed, but there are some crazy politicians and military forces out there that think they should play god to their own citizens. In times like these, we need to consider the repercussions of our actions. I hate to see this ever happen on American soil.

Re:Homeland... and the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023126)

"what's next? Tracking chips implanted in everyone? I don't know where this is all headed, but there are some crazy politicians and military forces out there that think they should play god to their own citizens."

Interesting that you should say that, considering that Bush has been reported to be activly trying to bring about the End Times. No links, cause I'm lazy. Google is your friend, though.

Raises a question: (2, Funny)

Runefox (905204) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023019)

But can they run Linux?

Time for tinfoil (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023022)

It's time to wrap my umbrella in tinfoil and use it every day. At least it's more comfortable than the tinfoil hat.

America's new twist on an old sport (2, Funny)

billcopc (196330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023023)

How high do these things fly above ground ? Are then within rifle range ? :) Skeet shooting could take on a whole new perspective!

Until you kill someone idiot (1)

technoextreme (885694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023080)

How high do these things fly above ground ? Are then within rifle range ? :) Skeet shooting could take on a whole new perspective!

Yeah now you have a big giant projectile flying towards the ground which could land on someone's house. Not to mention whenever you miss you will have a hail of buckshot flying randomly away. I really hope this was a joke. Also, I have only heard of a Predator Drone being shot down once and that was with an RPG. So I don't even think you would be able to shoot them down in the first place.

Re:America's new twist on an old sport (1)

keeboo (724305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023100)

How high do these things fly above ground ? Are then within rifle range ? :) Skeet shooting could take on a whole new perspective!

I guess one rifle probably could destroy (or at least damage it badly) one of these.
What I'm more unsure is whether would they send you to Guantanamo or do the dirty job locally?

Re:America's new twist on an old sport (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023105)

Man, you must be one horny son of a... Oh, nevermind, I misunderstood.

Re:America's new twist on an old sport (1)

DeltaHat (645840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023114)

Quick! Somebody call Dick Chaney!

I know what they're going to use it for. (1)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023036)

*cough* border patrol *cough*

Yea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023060)

I won't need to buy clay pigeons [iastate.edu] any more!

And more importantly, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023064)

Do you need a permit for these things? Or are they classified as varmints, and therefore, can be hunted at any time with no bag limit?

Finally a hunting sport vegans can enjoy! All the hunting, none of the guilt!

---------
Human rights [a-human-right.com]

BY and FOR the people? (-1, Troll)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023069)

The U.S. government is showing many signs that it is not a government BY and FOR the people.

Cheney's company is building [nytimes.com] prisons [halliburton.com] for the U.S. government.

World Trade Center building 7 fell in exactly the same exactly symmetrical way as WTC 1 and 2, and it was NOT hit by an airplane. ALL the collapses looked like controlled demolitions. See the news footage in the movie Loose Change [google.com] . It is a work in progress, but already very informative.

Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

The "Social Security" plans are designed to get amateur stock investors into the stock market, where the professionals, who back the plan, can take the amateur's money. To make money in the stock market, it is necessary to find buyers at a higher price than was paid. The social security plan would insure that there are many new, inexperienced buyers.

A government that does some things in secret cannot be a democratic government. Citizens cannot supervise what they don't know. Yet many actions of the U.S. government are through secret agencies like the CIA and NSA, and some whose names citizens are not allowed to know. But the citizens are expected to pay.

Re:If I had mod points... (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023091)


I'd mod this post up.

Stupid conspiracy nut (1)

technoextreme (885694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023193)

World Trade Center building 7 fell in exactly the same exactly symmetrical way as WTC 1 and 2, and it was NOT hit by an airplane.
I don't get it. Why do people believe such asinine things? The buildings caught on fire and collapsed from a failure in structual integrity. They are probably the most dramatic examples but this wasn't certainly wasn't the only time it happened. An oil tanker fire actually caused part of I-95 to buckle thus leaving part of the bridge unusable. The reason why all the of the collapses looked like controlled demolotions is because of Newton. Floor fails and floor fails down ontop of next floor which causes a domino effect. Even if part of the floor was strucually sound it was still going down. Also, those loud explosions you think people heard was the sound of foot wide girders being riped in half. PS. The magic bullet theory is entirely plausible.

I acutally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023072)

Saw this thing flying by my window the other day (I live right next door to the county in question). I thought those damn kids next door were screwing with me, so I went to find the shotgun. When I went out to shoot it, it was gone.

Goddamn Homeland Security Slush Fund... (5, Funny)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023087)

"The issue came to head when AOPA learned that the Gaston County Police Department in North Carolina had bought a "CyberBUG" UAV from Cyber Defense Systems."

Every fucking time I turn around another police outfit from Bumblefuck, U.S.A. has bought itself a shiny new toy with my "homeland security" tax dollars. (Add your least favorite story about the new SWAT team in a county with three homocides a year, an armored car for a town of 50K people, etc.) And because there usually aren't any terrorists anywhere near them, these knuckledraggers end up figuring out a way to chase the usual crowd of inbred drunks around town with it.

my god (2)

Aurisor (932566) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023101)

OK guys. The government is literally, unabashedly making automated drones for domestic surveilance....it's like hey guys, here are some neat robots we're going to use to spy on you with. This is literally, undeniably, frighteningly Orwellian.

Of course, journalists must be up in arms over this, right? Yes! Finally, our free press is holding our government accountable!

Oh wait. No.

"That raises not just privacy concerns," but [ insert a whole screenful of blather about how the FAA might have trouble "integrating" these drones into their flight paths. ]

Next we'll be seeing articles about how digital media companies are rushing to produce products that cut back on that pesky echo in your phones due to all the government wiretaps. "It raises not just privacy concerns, but audio fidelity ones as well!"

Let them do it within United States territory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15023116)

As soon as you people get a clue that the words "United States", and U.S. means the government. The name of the government is "United States".
So are you a Walmart citizen? Home Depot citizen?
Why do you swear under penality that you are a U.S. Government citizen?
Do you have a United States issued serial number? No? How about SSN? OH! That serial number! You are owned! Get a clue!
Stop them by stop being owned!

So I see no problem doing this in U.S. territory. Keep it in D.C. and those islands they own.
But just don't do it here in the several States.

Half-Life 2 (1)

tmasky (862064) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023124)

I always scoffed when people claimed that Half-Life 2 was "so realistic". Well bugger me, they weren't wrong - just early.

2084 (4, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023149)

I wish Orwell's 1984 was required to be taught and discussed to death in citizenship classes in high school. What most people don't seem to understand is that 1984 is not really about "big brother" but instead it foretells what Orwell deeply distrusted: a global information system and the abuse of it. In a way Orwell was a pessimist - he knew that no matter how well intentioned any system would be abused. UAV's are a symptom of Orwell's fears, they are just more information inputs into a global database. By themselves it's almost silly to complain about them but in aggregate with other databases the whole becomes dangerous to liberty. Everyone has broken some law somewhere and if that information is easily looked up it makes everyone susceptible to blackmail - who did you have an affair with last year? There was an old soviet joke about having laws against everything so if the KGB wanted you they would simply selectively enforce any law they wanted to against you. What citizens should demand to combat Orwell's dystopia is transparency in the process' and records of their government. Yes some things do need to be classified but they are usually the exception and not the rule. And no matter how classified everything should eventually become known.

Anyway, I'm too drunk to continue so please correct and extend what I've said. Goodnight. ;) :)

Unconstitutional Surveilance? (0)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023165)

The question in my mind is when is "blanket surveilance" of the public so universal that it is unconstitutional by default.

Relevant to finding the answer is:

From the Bill of Rights

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, adn the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 8
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

LAW:
There are ?federal?state? antistalking laws. I presume they must apply to police departments, too, if there is no warrant issued to follow a person, or use cameras/private eyes to follow them around in public areas.

Yea there's got to be more to it, but that's my layman's effort at constitionally examining evil 1984 Domesting Spy Drones.

That's for the legal analysis. And now for the larger implications:

BUSH PUSHED FOR
SECRET TRIALS
SECRET DETENTION
TORTURE
UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO DECLARE WAR
ROVING SURVEILANCE
ROVING WIRETAPS
SEARCHES WITHOUT WARRANTS
SECRET GOVERNMENT OFFICES
SECRET PRISONS
SECRET PRISONER LISTS
PRISONERS WITHOUT RIGHTS
SHADOW GOVERNMENT
EXPANDING THE MILITARY FOR A TRUMPED UP WAR
AND THE BASTARD WAS NEVER EVEN PROPERLY ELECTED!
WTF!!

I BELIEVE BUSH DID 911 ON HIS OWN,
TO JUSTIFY BUILDING A POLICE STATE.
THE BUILDUP TO THE WAR HAS ALL THE HALLMARKS OF 1937 GERMANY.

I DON'T WANT A POLICE STATE.
THERE IS NO PUBLIC MANDATE FOR A POLICE STATE.

IT'S EITHER TIME TO STORM THE WHITE HOUSE!
-OR-
DRAFT G.W. BUSH INTO THE INFANTRY, TO THE FRONT LINES, TO IRAQ. AS A RIFLEMAN!
-OR-
IMPEACH

IT IS TIME!!!

drug sting (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023175)

I wonder if monotoring drug trafficing is the main intended use. I guess I really don't mind it. It's just another tool. How could a drone be misused in a way that any other survelance tool can't be?

Welcome to... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023177)

The Surveillance States of CAMerica.

Skynet (1)

WheresMyDingo (659258) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023181)

um, just checking... do they look anything like this [orionrobots.co.uk] ?

You must. (4, Interesting)

Raven42rac (448205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023202)

You must give up freedom to protect freedom. That is, unless you hate freedom. How did this happen to my country in 6 years? How the fuck.

Finally! (1)

DextroShadow (957200) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023203)

The rednecks can finally shoot at something else other than their cars!

PULL!

Um; One question: (1)

Lost Penguin (636359) | more than 8 years ago | (#15023206)

Would these be the same "Drones" that carry Air to Surface Missiles?
Like we use in Afganistan and Iraq?
But we might need a court order to load live rounds, right?

This may be how the Republicans plan on winning this next election:
They can link the electronic voting booths to these "unarmed" drones.

"Press here to vote against Bush" (Swish, Boom) "Next voter please"

 
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?