The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dandi on May 24, 2012, 11:52:20 AM
-
I don't want to live in a surveillance society with drones hovering over my backyard BBQ as a matter of routine, but I also understand that these little 'copters and fixed-wing machines could have important applications in search and rescue, active crime scene surveillance, reducing the need for high-speed road pursuits, and the like. As with anything else the government does, it requires careful scrutiny and limit-setting. But while there is room for debate on both sides of the issue, eFerrari, in her own inimitable style, demonstrates why one should not enter a battle of wits while unarmed:
EFerrari (162,630 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
Drone Program Aims To 'Accelerate' Use Of Unmanned Aircraft By Police
Andrea Stone (HuffPo)
5/22/12
WASHINGTON -- The Department of Homeland Security has launched a program to "facilitate and accelerate the adoption" of small, unmanned drones by police and other public safety agencies, an effort that an agency official admitted faces "a very big hurdle having to do with privacy."
The $4 million Air-based Technologies Program, which will test and evaluate small, unmanned aircraft systems, is designed to be a "middleman" between drone manufacturers and first-responder agencies "before they jump into the pool," said John Appleby, a manager in the DHS Science and Technology Directorate's division of borders and maritime security.
Appleby provided program details to a friendly audience at the Counter Terror Expo here last week. Just days before, the Federal Aviation Administration had issued new rules to streamline licensing for government agencies seeking to operate lightweight drones.
The DHS program "is meant to aid the user community in making informed decisions" about buying drones, said a DHS spokeswoman. She said the department can help law enforcement agencies "better understand what this technology can contribute in areas such as real-time law enforcement operational support; special event response; crime scene situational awareness; border security; fire/wildfire detection; and disaster evaluation and initial response."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/22/drones-dhs-program-unmanned-aircraft-police_n_1537074.html?ref=tw13
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002716849#post21
EFerrari (162,630 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
4. It's sort of like the Love Boat, only up in the sky
lol
Okay. What?
randome
3. If privacy concerns are addressed, I would have no problem with this.
Better surveillance drones than manned helicopters accidentally crashing into something.
But as I said, privacy needs to be addressed. Maybe something along the lines of deploying drones only in the event of an emergency or, absent that, only with a judge's okay?
EFerrari (162,630 posts)
5. Yeah, let's militarize the sky, no problem.
We can't get police departments to use tasers responsibly so, let's give them drones.
Response to EFerrari (Reply #5)
Wed May 23, 2012, 04:00 PM
Robb (34,768 posts)
8. They already have helicopters and planes, too.
EFerrari (162,630 posts)
12. And tanks and LRADs, yes, I know
randome (4,095 posts)
9. As technology progresses, it will be used.
Think how invaluable a surveillance drone would be to track a missing child. Or a fugitive. Or even to find an escaped convict.
As I said, privacy concerns need to be addressed. And any 'militarization' of drones should be strictly forbidden. Always. Other than that, yeah, bring on the drones!
Response to randome (Reply #9)
Wed May 23, 2012, 04:21 PM
EFerrari (162,630 posts)
11. You must be ****ing kidding me.
All of those situations are resolved with human intelligence more often than not, which drones do not have.
I don't know. Compared to you, a drone is operating at an Einstein-ian level of itelligence.
randome (4,095 posts)
13. They're not always resolved. Sometimes people die.
Last edited Wed May 23, 2012, 04:26 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Try searching a forest for a missing child. You can sure as hell cover more ground with aerial reconnaissance. What's the point of putting out an Amber alert if you're just going to hope that someone, somewhere will see the alert and connect it with the right make and model car they may or may not have seen recently?
Address the privacy issues. Forbid militarization. What's the problem?
On edit:
Drones don't move about on their own. I don't believe they have robotic capabilities. They're controlled by someone sitting in an office with a monitor. So yeah, let the police do their jobs so long as we have the right safeguards in place.
EFerrari (162,630 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
18. Um, you can't forbid militarization WHILE you militarize the skies above American cities.
And as far as finding a child in a forest, there are these things called dogs whose noses can detect a drop in a swimming pool the size of Colorado. And aerial reconnaissance cannot comb a community with the granularity that actual people can.
There is no reason to allow drones above our communities except that it will be very profitable for some defense contractor(s)
stevenleser (9,308 posts)
20. What is military about a remote control plane with a camera? These do not have weapons.
The ones the police use are not weaponized. This would not constitute militarization of the skies.
EFerrari (162,630 posts)
22. So, in your opinion, we should allow a weapons system into the skies above America
because that weapons system is not armed?
Okay.
stevenleser (9,308 posts)
29. Its not a weapons system. It is a remote control plane with a camera. nt
EFerrari (162,630 posts)
35. A distinction without a difference. n/t
Yeah, like a Piper Cub and an F-22 is a "distinction without a difference".
stevenleser
38. No matter how you slice it, it has no resemblance to a weapons system.
Remote control planes with cameras have existed for 40+ years. This is nothing new.
It is not a weapon, it is not militarized.
EFerrari (162,630 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
42. Of course it's a weapons system.
Good grief. Ask Pakistan.
Your unloaded gun is still a gun.
Why do people defend this shit? It's unfathomable.
randome (4,095 posts)
10. If it saves lives, it's money well spent.
If the tools are used responsibly. It's up to us to see to it that our concerns are addressed.
Response to randome (Reply #10)
Wed May 23, 2012, 04:26 PM
EFerrari (162,630 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
15. Isn't that what some people said about the nuclear bomb?
I don't think this country is militarized enough. I think we should be issued uniforms so when the drones fly over our homes, we can stand at attention.
randome (4,095 posts)
17. When I say the words 'not militarized' what I really mean is...
...have laws and regulations put into place that forbid the militarization of drones.Idealism is fine but soldiers win the war.
EFerrari (162,630 posts)
19. Drones were developed by the military. They come militarized just as tanks do. n/t
randome (4,095 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
21. Now you're being purposely obtuse.
A drone can be equipped with whatever its operators want it to be equipped with. Like I said -pass laws that forbid it to carry anything but cameras.
I think you're bound and determined to see something evil in this but I don't think you're making your points. And as for finding missing children, drones could still be very useful. It doesn't matter if you have a hundred people with a hundred dogs, they are all still going to be on the ground. You can get a much better and faster view of the situation -kidnappings, collapsed buildings or bridges, escaped convicts, etc.- if you have something in the air.
If we stand against militarization, it won't happen. And if you think it will happen despite what we want, well, then there was no point in starting this thread, was there?
EFerrari (162,630 posts)
24. Precisely. Drones can be equipped with whatever its operators choose.
That is not a selling point.
And yes, dogs and searchers are on the ground. When lost children are up in the sky, then you might have an argument.
And of course we need to stand against the further militarization of our communities. Militarization is sucking us dry and eating our civil rights. At this point, we have no choice but to organize a response to it. Time has come.
:mental:
randome (4,095 posts)
28. Yes, the drones are coming.
And they are bringing the evils of 'guvmint' Socialism with them. I'm not sure how a camera is going to come for my phone or my car. Perhaps it will hover menacingly like a super-annoying mosquito.
Address the privacy and militarization concerns. If we're not going to do that, then we shouldn't complain.
EFerrari (162,630 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
41. Oh, for Chrissakes.
Drones are not cameras. And this weapons system has nothing to do with socialism. And you can't "address" privacy or militarization WHILE you permit drones in the air above our communities.
Otherwise, you're right.
-
Beth is doubling and tripling down on her stooooopidity in that thread. Could this be the start of her run for the DOTY?
-
Poor old Beth, puts the DU in DUmmie. That woman is brain dead.
-
I guess this means I'm going to have to get a Concealed Airplane License now if I ever decide to go buy an R/C plane. :whatever:
Wow, Bethy. Definitely deserving of the title "Dumbest Person on the Internet."
-
I guess this means I'm going to have to get a Concealed Airplane License now if I ever decide to go buy an R/C plane. :whatever:
Wow, Bethy. Definitely deserving of the title "Dumbest Person on the Internet."
Not the correct title, Mike. Dumbest Person on the Internet implies that she didn't have any choice in the matter. Stupidest Person on the Internet, OTOH, means that she has the ability to be smart--but chooses not to be. She is the Stupidest Person on the Internet.
-
Quote from EFerrari...
"All of those situations are resolved with human intelligence more often than not, which drones do not have."
Where to begin ?
-
Not the correct title, Mike. Dumbest Person on the Internet implies that she didn't have any choice in the matter. Stupidest Person on the Internet, OTOH, means that she has the ability to be smart--but chooses not to be. She is the Stupidest Person on the Internet.
Indago might think she is the "Dumest"
-
EFerrari (162,630 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
18. Um, you can't forbid militarization WHILE you militarize the skies above American cities.
And as far as finding a child in a forest, there are these things called dogs whose noses can detect a drop in a swimming pool the size of Colorado.
Maybe we could get flying dogs with passive IR/FLIR vision.
:rotf:
-
Well, dandi. That was quite a find.
I started out literally laughing out loud to Beth saying something about a Love Boat in the sky. From there it progressed to my jaw hanging open in incredulity and my brains leaking out of my ears. Truly a gem of a thread.
I have to go watch a Bullwinkle cartoon to regain IQ points.
-
There's only one thing that could make the that thread better........Nads. :shucks:
-
:thatsright:
-
I can only fathom that Stupid beth has a crop or two growing on Mom's land that she doesn't want a an officer with a remote control helicopter seeing.
-
I have to go watch a Bullwinkle cartoon to regain IQ points.
Rocky: And now...
Bullwinkle: Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nXQbOXXgGas/TvSueKjRnPI/AAAAAAAAFQM/QgZLbFnRy7M/s400/bullwinkle_magic-hat.jpg)
-
Rocky: And now...
Bullwinkle: Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nXQbOXXgGas/TvSueKjRnPI/AAAAAAAAFQM/QgZLbFnRy7M/s400/bullwinkle_magic-hat.jpg)
Is that Snugs ?
-
Is that Snugs ?
Only if he's lyin' about being a bunny!
-
That is the funniest thread I have seen since the Vermont bitch wallduded herself. :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
Only if he's lyin' about being a bunny!
My question is can I sue for invasion of privacy if one of those damn ultra lights fly over taking pictures for Goggle the area and I am sunbathing naked on my deck, out of sight of anyone but in the air space over my home ??
Just how high does the air space over the ones property go ?? Some have mineral rights to what is beneath the ground on their property but what about rights to air space? How high can I put up a Ham antenna before I have to put a flashing red light on top ???
I have no problem with drones used in law enforcement, good I would guess only in daylight unless equipped with inferred or heat seeking ability's.
BTW, back in the 1960's the DMV of most states reported all people considered color blind. The Draft was looking for males that had a problem with Green. I popped on the reds and was told that had I popped on Green and a male of young age the government would move heaven and earth to get me.
Reason, they needed spotters to ride the Choppers and tell the difference of the natural ground cover from the camouflaged stuff on the ground. Today Technology does this no people needed.
I am no fan of the ultra lights that come in sounding like a million angry Yellow Hornets and make 3-4 passes over my neighborhood. If the time comes when a picture is taken of me in my birthday suit and published, then I have no choice but to hold a naked party for beginner weight watchers and and welcome the pilot down for a party.
-
Not the correct title, Mike. Dumbest Person on the Internet implies that she didn't have any choice in the matter. Stupidest Person on the Internet, OTOH, means that she has the ability to be smart--but chooses not to be. She is the Stupidest Person on the Internet.
Doh! Thanks for the correction.
-
Rocky: And now...
Bullwinkle: Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nXQbOXXgGas/TvSueKjRnPI/AAAAAAAAFQM/QgZLbFnRy7M/s400/bullwinkle_magic-hat.jpg)
Rocky: "But that trick NEVER works!" :lmao:
-
Since several years back when I first read a post in which frank referred to Beth as the Stupidest Person on the Internet I've been trying to find a DUmmie that is more stupid. I suppose that you could say that I doubted that frank was correct. After reading this post I feel that I owe coach an apology. If you happen to read this frank, you were apparently correct in your assessment of Beth and I apologize for doubting you on the issue.
-
Reminds me of a quote.
"Thank you for playing should we or shouldn't we seek the advise of the Galactically stupid. "
-
Rocky: And now...
Bullwinkle: Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nXQbOXXgGas/TvSueKjRnPI/AAAAAAAAFQM/QgZLbFnRy7M/s400/bullwinkle_magic-hat.jpg)
Hey Rocky, watch me pull my head out of my ass.
-
Maybe we could get flying dogs with passive IR/FLIR vision.
:rotf:
Thanks to stem cell research, we will soon have this!
-
Reminds me of a quote.
"Thank you for playing should we or shouldn't we seek the advise of the Galactically stupid. "
A Few Good Men. Pretty good for a Tom Cruise move. Jack Nicholson , Kiefer, Demi, Bacon, petty good cast too.
-
Maybe we could get flying dogs with passive IR/FLIR vision.
:rotf:
But, would you want that in a big breed (Doberman, Rottweiler) or a small breed (Scotch Terrier, Pappilon)? I suppose that the small breeds could be the "scout" dogs . . . :fuelfire:
-
But, would you want that in a big breed (Doberman, Rottweiler) or a small breed (Scotch Terrier, Pappilon)? I suppose that the small breeds could be the "scout" dogs . . . :fuelfire:
Dachshunds.
Lots of "surface area" to mount the video equipment, low profile. :lmao:
-
Dachshunds.
Lots of "surface area" to mount the video equipment, low profile. :lmao:
They would be the scouts.
-
Maybe we could get flying dogs with passive IR/FLIR vision.
:rotf:
(http://www.zlotcams.com/molly/FlyingMolly.jpg)
The VRWC Lab is working on it.
-
Dachshunds.
Lots of "surface area" to mount the video equipment, low profile. :lmao:
Ive got one, but I'm not certain she is smart enough to fly in a straight line.
-
Since several years back when I first read a post in which frank referred to Beth as the Stupidest Person on the Internet I've been trying to find a DUmmie that is more stupid. I suppose that you could say that I doubted that frank was correct. After reading this post I feel that I owe coach an apology. If you happen to read this frank, you were apparently correct in your assessment of Beth and I apologize for doubting you on the issue.
Hold on here, I have earned that title and refuse to give it up to Beth. Only thing worse then a stupid Liberal is a stupid Conservative. :panic:
-
Hold on here, I have earned that title and refuse to give it up to Beth. Only thing worse then a stupid Liberal is a stupid Conservative. :panic:
Vesta, the sheer weight of Beth's stupidity easily outguns you. You should be happy for that.