Why UAVs and Other Drones Won't be Used Frequently

[MineralMan]

Despite the concerns many people have about domestic use of UAV's, the reality is that they aren't going to be flying over your neighborhood constantly. Here's why:

1. Drones are expensive to buy and maintain.
2. Drones require trained operators when used.

How will these UAV's be used, mostly?

1. Searching for missing persons. Already, a UAV has been used in Texas to find the body of a missing child in terrain that was almost inaccessible to ground searchers.
2. Locating violent criminals who are fleeing from police. Right now, helicopters are the primary way such searches are done. Helicopters are even more expensive to own and operate, and require professional pilots and ground crews. UAV's will reduce costs for such searches.
3. Pin-pointing the positions of armed people holding hostages or firing weapons at civilians or police. That has already happened and the capture was achieved without any loss of life.
4. Monitoring large crowds. They will be used for this, almost certainly.
5. In disaster situations, such as floods and wildfires, and after events like tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Drones will be widely used in such situations to monitor conditions and locate people in danger, so that rescue crews can get to them more quickly.

How will they NOT be used:

1. To "take people out." That's simply not going to one of the ways these drones are used. Armed drones won't be flying domestically, I'm quite certain.
2. To spy on people in general. Too damned expensive for that. The ubiquitous "security" cameras already can do that at far lower expense. There aren't enough drones on the planet to use for this purpose, and won't be.

When will you like having UAVs available?

1. If your child goes missing.
2. If someone you care about is involved in a natural disaster, missing somewhere, or needs to be located after some accident.
3. If some violent armed idiot is in your neighborhood or at your child's school.

Then, you'll think that UAVs are just fine.

[agentS]

1. Mission creep of the security state is still a concern

That said, I think the odds of an activist getting hit with a drone strike while at home are pretty much 0%.

On a humorous side note, police officers who are avid players of Call of Duty will have fun with this- calling down rotten-egg drone strikes on each other's houses and cars.

[Taverner]

85. DING DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner

Sure, nothing bad will happen at first

But ten years down the road they could

Take Social Security - designed with the best of intentions, and it works very well

HOWEVER, you are now a number, something Roosevelt said would never happen. Something like, your SSN will NEVER be a government ID.

[JDPriestly]

2. And how can you be sure that UAVs won't be used for killing and other horrible purposes.

I woke up very early this morning and listened as the city around me woke up.

The first mechanical sound I heard near my house was a car engine starting -- very loud and abrasive.

The second mechanical sound I heard was the roar of a helicopter circling and circling and circling overhead. The good news is that I could hear it was there.

The UAVs will be violating the air space over our houses -- all in the interests of taking care of us, I'm sure.

The UAVs and other technologically advanced crowd control equipment will not just chill our First Amendment rights -- they will freeze them. Forget spontaneous demonstrations or any kind of demonstrations. Anyone who participates will have their photo taken by one of these contraptions.

Technology should be used to improve our society, to make us more free, to encourage more participation in politics and science and the arts. These snoop and control devices will make us less free, discourage participation in politics and science and the arts.

I oppose the use of drones in the skies of the US. And I certainly do not want any over my house.

[MineralMan]

3. Yeah, I hear helicopters in St. Paul, MN, too.

If I'm outside, I look up. Yesterday, in fact, there was a very low-flying chopper making repeated passes over my neighborhood, so I went out to see what was going on. It was the Mosquito Abatement District's chopper, applying control materials on the lake just four blocks from my house. Other times, it's the police chopper, looking for someone who has committed some crime or another. A few times a year, a flight of Chinook's owned by the military flies over on a training exercise.

So far, none of them have been spying on my house or my activities. All passed over the "air space" above my house. Add the planes that fly over on their approach to the St. Paul downtown airport, and there's lots and lots of activity in that air space. Will a UAV fly over some day? Probably. It'll be doing something similar, I suppose, to the police helicopters I see a couple of times a month.

Do they improve society? It depends on what they're doing. If they're locating a missing person, then I'd say yes. If they're applying mosquito control products on my nearby lake, then you bet they are. If they're trying to find someone who has just committed a crime in my area, then, yeah, that improves society, too.

Will they be watching crowds? I'm sure they will. The police are always around watching crowds.

[randome]

58. Come on, man.

Did you actually SEE any mosquitoes? Hm? Thought not.

[MineralMan]

61. Have you been to Minnesota? The Mosquito is our

State Bird. They've been known to carry off small children, you know.

Actually the aerial treatment of the local lakes has really cut down on the mosquito problem. The choppers make a lot of noise, though

[randome]

68. The mosquitoes have evolved to fly the choppers!

That's what the government REALLY means when they experiment with 'drones'. And contrails. It's a brand new Armageddon!

But thanks for the common-sense list of useful things drones can be used for.

[KG]

4. oh, c'mon. be a good woodchuck. remember, if you haven't done anything wrong,

you have nothing to worry about...

[stevenleser]

43. Complete manufactured outrage. Remote Control planes with Cameras have been around for 50+ years

There is no change from the current situation. Frankly, Remote Control planes with cameras have been around for over 50+ years. Someone decided to use the term 'drone' and people go berserk. Where was your outrage before? One has been able to buy a remote control plane for around $100 for years. There are clubs for flying them. http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/rc-airplane-clubs.html

There have been inexpensive camera attachments available for these planes for at least 40 years.

The delta from one of these devices versus regular law enforcement surveillance plus satellite surveillance is also pretty low. But again, they have been readily available since the 1960s.

[Fumesucker]

55. It's always too early to complain..

Until it's too late to do any good.

Imagine one of these hovering outside your bedroom window..

[MineralMan]

62. Why would it be doing that?

I can't imagine why a UAV like that would be hovering there. The City Police patrol our street a couple of times a night, though. They don't seem to be looking in people's bedroom windows, though. Most folks have curtains in my neighborhood.

[Fumesucker]

64. Again, not everywhere is the city you live in..

You keep extrapolating from your own experience, it's not always the same as the experiences of others.

History teaches us that power *will* be abused, it's only a matter of time before this particular scenario happens somewhere.

Consider that the people who held the new neighbors at gunpoint were at first praised by the local police until the story hit the headlines, rather like what happened in the Trayvon Martin case.

[SidDithers]

73. Or a guy standing there with one of these...

Ban binoculars!!

Sid

[Fumesucker]

74. Do they fly helicopters over your home to look for pot plants where you live, Sid?

I wonder why they don't just use binoculars, you can see anything with them.

[HiPointDem]

108. manpower.

[Fumesucker]

112. The only human powered helicopter is actually woman powered...

http://news.cnet.com/human-powered-helicopter-gets-off-the-ground/8301-17938_105-20063675-1.html

[FSogol]

6. You don't have any right to air space over your house.

Similarly if you discovered oil or minerals on your land, you might not own them.

[JDPriestly]

19. You do have a right to some of the air space over your house.

The United States Supreme Court held in this case that "this doctrine has no place in the modern world,"[4] at least as far as air rights are concerned,[5] but it remains as a source of law to this day, or "fundamental to property rights in land."[2]:

The court's decision, authored by Justice William O. Douglas, could have resolved the case on a narrow ground by simply holding that there was a taking of land because the government's flights affected the land. Justice Douglas did reach that conclusion, but then he went much further and opined on what airspace landowners do and do not own. He wrote that "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" . . . Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface."[1]

United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby

What does "occupy or use" mean?

I think it should mean the space above your head in which mechanical noises can be produced that are above a certain decibel level. I do not think we should have to accept noisy mechanical objects hovering or passing through the air space over our homes.

[Bake]

7. Do you have rights to the airspace above your house?

Are you sure? How high up do your airspace rights extend? Can you give me a citation to any legal source, statute, case law, etc. that establishes and defines that right?

As for killing, if the state wants to do that, isn't it easier to just send in armed SWAT teams?

I think there's a good bit of paranoia here.

Bake

[JDPriestly]

20. Yes. You have a right some of the air space over your house.

United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby

[Bake]

26. Good point, but the Court did not define how high they extend.

It appears to be just the immediate airspace necessary for things like trees, buildings, fences, etc.

I would imagine that drones fly a little higher than that.

Bake

[JDPriestly]

46. Maybe high enough to build a skyscraper if you want.

Maybe high enough for a redwood.

[Major Nikon]

51. Maybe, but maybe not too

Drive around a public use airport sometime and it's pretty common to see trees right off the approach ends of the runway that have been clipped. If you try to erect a tower or any other obstruction in certain areas, the government may either deny your permit or make you take the obstruction down if it interferes with the right of way for aircraft.

Kenneth Copeland (filthy rich Texas televangelist) has his own private airport that he converted to public use. Why? Because had he left it as private use someone could have built a tower right off the approach end of his runways and prevented their use. As a public airport they can't. The weekend after he converted his airport to public use, I went over there at 6am and flew touch and goes right over his mansion all morning long.

[JDPriestly]

93. Good for you.

I don't mind something flying high enough above my house that I can't hear it.

I don't live near an airport, but I live near downtown LA. Our problem, I think, is mostly police helicopters.

It can be especially bad at night. You are trying to sleep and buzzzzzzzzz.

I do not believe it is necessary. I think that complete egotists like to get in their copters and planes and other toys and harass the public. If this happened to them while they were sleeping or ruined their Fourth of July picnic in the backyard, they would be furious. It is another example of people wanting to live like cowboys in an urban setting.

Funny, just as I was posting this, another helicopter started buzzing overhead.

It's better now than it was some years ago.

I had a child living at home who was working nights in a job in which people's lives were at stake. I always worried that she was not getting enough sleep due to the constant helicopter-flying over our house. We must be on some sort of path. Maybe it is because we are not far from a freeway.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. FAA gets consulted within a certain radius of the airport...but they do not always win

[Major Nikon]

107. Not just around airports

Anyone who builds or modifies anything >200' anywhere must notify the FAA, even if it's temporary. The FAA does an airspace study and they will tell you if and how your structure gets built. The FAA may not always win, but in the vast majority of cases they do. Not winning generally means some procedure is invalidated which translates to a direct impact on the flying public.

[Bake]

66. That skyscraper might depend on the zoning ordinances ...

Couldn't build one on my street ...

Bake

[Major Nikon]

50. The court also didn't define how much of that the government can take

In fact, the government can and frequently does claim all the airspace right down to the surface. If anyone thinks US v Causby is going to keep drones from flying over their house, they are in for a rude awakening, perhaps literally.

[FSogol]

5. Good post. I don't have any problems with drones.

The police helicopters in my town aren't allowed to carry weapons. Drones will fall under the same category.

If mission creep or expansion of police powers is a concern, remember that police are answerable to elected officials. If you feel your police department is becoming militarized, change it.

One quibble: the cost will come down as they become more common.

[MineralMan]

9. The cost for the UAVs themselves may come down,

but every time one's in the sky, a trained operator, using the technology needed to control it, will be on the job. With all the cuts law enforcement is doing, generally, how many UAV pilots and control systems are they going to be able to afford? Personally, I think this is the primary reason their use will be very limited. Who's going to be flying them, and where's all the control equipment coming from?

[FSogol]

11. Usually, upgrades to law enforcement tech comes from Federal grants.

I'm sure the lobbyists are already on the case.

[MineralMan]

17. Yah, you're right. Still, for every drone that is deployed,

There's a control system and an operator in use the whole time it's in the air. How many UAVs do you suppose the city of St. Paul, MN, for example is going to have flying around the city? If they get one, I'll be surprised. And that one would end up being used to patrol the Mississippi River area where it runs through the center of the downtown area. We already have a DHS boat that patrols that area, to go with the DNR boat and the SPPD boat. Patrolling the skies over the neighborhoods just isn't going to be on the list, I imagine.

Bottom line is that they'll be useful for finding missing persons, violent criminals who need to be located, and patrolling the River. Beyond that, I doubt anyone will ever see one. In any case, the guy operating it will end up crashing it before long, I'm sure.

[Fumesucker]

27. You can put together your own UAV for under a grand for a relatively unsophisticated model..

Here's a video from a small model in that basic price range.

[MineralMan]

32. Lovely video.

Nice fly-through. I wish I could afford one of those to check out a lake before I launch my boat to go fishing.

[TheWraith]

52. Hell, you can do it for a lot less if you do it on the cheap.

I figure between a big radio controlled plane off eBay, and a wireless camera/receiver from China, I could build one for around $200. Granted it would only have the juice to run 15 minutes or so, but still...

[Fumesucker]

53. Thanks for making my point with a sledgehammer..

In government terms UAVs are already disposable at a few hundred bucks a pop.

Carrying a camera/transmitter/batteries your run time would be more like five minutes with a cheapo model though.

[JDPriestly]

24. For now, they aren't allowed to carry weapons. But how much will it take for that to change?

[FSogol]

29. Never changed for the police helicopters in my county in 20+ years. n/t

[Bake]

8. Thanks for the much-needed voice of reason and sanity.

There's a lot of paranoia out there. Or in here. Ahem.

Bake

[hobbit709]

10. Wait until they use them to look for a pot plant on your back porch.

[MineralMan]

12. My back porch?`

There are no pot plants growing there. I can't even keep tomato plants alive. In any case, if I was going to grow dope, I have a nice basement. Couple of grow lights, and I'm golden.

How much money, time, and resources do you suppose your city's police department's going to spend looking for that pot plant on your back porch? Seriously...

[Fumesucker]

15. They do it with helicopters now..

Good thing that UAVs are more expensive to buy, fly and maintain than helicopters.

[MineralMan]

25. Helicopters are being used to look for pot plants

on people's back porches? Really? Not in my city, they aren't. The only people busted for pot plants on porches are those turned in by neighbors, and that's not even a priority for the local police.

Now, helicopters do get used to look for large plantings in rural areas, it's true. Personally, I think marijuana should be legalized. But the guy with a couple of plants needs to be more concerned with the next door neighbor than the police. Truly.

[Fumesucker]

31. Not everyone on DU lives in your city..

[MineralMan]

33. I'm sure glad of that. There are plenty of people

living here already, I think.

How about your city? How do they use the choppers there? Are they peering into people's back yards looking for pot plants there?

[Fumesucker]

36. A neighbor has a sun porch on the back of the house with a few non-reefer plants in it..

Every few months a helicopter comes along and spends an inordinate amount of time hovering over the porch (which is not visible from the street).

I don't *know* that's what they're doing but I can't think of another more likely explanation.

[MineralMan]

37. Weird. We can't even get the cops to come look at

an obvious crack house a couple of blocks down from my house.

[Fumesucker]

41. Someone growing a few plants on their back porch is unlikely to become violent when raided..

A crack house is a different story..

Low hanging fruit gets plucked first.

[bahrbearian]

95. Forfeiture laws determine who gets busted

[Fumesucker]

99. True that..

Good point.

[WingDinger]

57. Your elec use profile, is scrutinized for tells. Then, they use lies like you are beating a woman, s

so they can bust in without a warrant. Ask me how I know? They had four cops with guns drawn, and beating on my door. Rational proportionality, is often the last consideration of cops.

[MineralMan]

59. They've been looking for excessive electrical use for a long

time. The power companies are happy to oblige. A neighbor of mine in California had a complete NC machine shop in his garage. He was retired, but did custom machining of special alloy materials for aerospace companies. He had three-phase power installed at his home to run the equipment. Big power bills. The cops showed up one day. Not the SWAT team or anything, but they showed up. So he opened his garage for them.

But, you're right. If your electric bill goes up 100% or something suddenly, folks will notice and you may get a visit.

I'm not sure what this has to do with UAV's though. They can't see through the walls of a grow room.

[Fumesucker]

65. Are you sure they can't see through walls?

Are you sure they never will be able to?

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/Chip-Lets-Phones-See-Through-Walls/story.xhtml?story_id=11000BH3XHRC

[WingDinger]

67. Actually, they can see thru walls.

After a light cycle, the slab is radiating enough for a signature. And the point is, they will spend large money, to chase small fry.

And even less AMOUNTS of elec usage, are tells, as they come on at smae intervals every day.

[MineralMan]

78. You grow the weed, you take the chances, I guess.

I shut down my indoor growing in 1974, when I stopped smoking it. I wouldn't set up any sort of large-scale indoor growing today. Power-use monitoring is just too sophisticated. And, as you say, infrared visualization is pretty advanced, too.

But then, I don't smoke it no more, so it's not really my deal.

However, I did all the content for a largish hydroponics and growlight firm last year. They're doing a very good business, and I doubt that much of what they sell is used to grow tomatoes, really. It was an interesting project, since the language all had to be hedged to avoid any inference that the equipment, etc. being sold had any illegal purposes whatsoever. It was a fun challenge.

None of that, however, helps with the energy needs of indoor grow operations. I'm not sure what the alternative is there. I do know what the solution is, though. Legalize the stuff and let people grow it as they choose. Then, folks can give up on all that expensive technology and grow outdoors or in greenhouses. That would be really simple and a helluva lot cheaper, for sure. And how do we legalize it? We vote people into office who will do that. It will take some time.

[WingDinger]

84. Yeah, cept it's legal for patients, and they didnt know squat about legal.

[Fumesucker]

14. The authorities would *never* do something like that.. n/t

Don't you know that a five pound UAV is more expensive and costs more to operate than a five man chopper?

[JDPriestly]

23. That may be why they hover over my house -- to snoop at my arugula, tomatoes,

and oodles of lettuce, etc. in odd pots in my yard. Where I don't have trees, I have pots of vegetables on cement. That may be why there is so much noise. (I'm in the middle of LA.)

But if so, they are wasting a lot of money. I am not at all interested in marijuana. I just like fresh vegetables -- chard, radishes, beets, squash, herbs, all kinds of vegetables.

[whatchamacallit]

13. Opinions are like...

thanks for more authoritatively presentated hopes.

[hack89]

16. There are many non-law enforcement uses for drones

Here is the NASA assessment - start on page 22:

http://www.uavm.com/images/NASA_UAV_Capabilities_Assessment-2004.pdf

There are 35 identified uses in Earth Sciences, environmental monitoring, and land management - I am sure have been added to the list since the report was written.

[MineralMan]

18. That's very true. I'm just talking about the use in

cities. I'm sure there are many agricultural uses, as well. Thanks for the link!

[hack89]

22. I agree with your premise

I think the concern over UAVs is vastly overblown - they have many science and commercial applications.

[FSogol]

21. The Hollywood paparazi should buy some drones to spy on celebs better.

Soon the skies will be black from drones spying on hot teens and looking for pot plants on back porches.

[MineralMan]

28. Yup, and people sunbathing nude in their back yards. They'll

need hundreds of UAVs just for that. Just picture a buncha cops standing around watching the live feed from the NudieSeeker UAV. Now, that's progress!

I'll tell them about the cute girl who is always on her family's dock at my favorite fishing lake. No tan lines on her. She always waves. I cover my eyes, though. It just ain't right, you know.

[whatchamacallit]

30. Uncreepitization fail.

[rug]

34. I can't wait for the benign use of pain rays.

The drones will find the violent criminals who harm children and the pain ray wil humanely immobilize them.

[EFerrari]

70. Lmao

[Rex]

75. I, for one, welcome our future drone overlords.

For the record.

[GeorgeGist]

35. $350 online

4 Channel Predator/Reaper Style UAV Drone RC Plane w/Brushless Motor


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0PB0617059

[MineralMan]

39. Nice RC model. What's its payload do you think?

People have been flying RC planes for many, many years. Some even carry cameras. It's a fun hobby, but I really can't afford it.

See, that technology has been around since the 1970s. More recently, wireless video cameras have been added to the stuff people can put on those RC models. But, here's the deal: Those inexpensive models have to be flown by an operator who can see them in flight from the ground. They're not much use for other types of operation.

UAV's that can be operated remotely by an operator who can't see the plane require much more in the way of electronics and controls. They have to have high-end GPS, live navigation cameras that can stream video for the operator. That can use cell phone technology, though. When you get into the category of equipment that would be useful to police, your $350 won't go very far.

What you're showing is an RC model of a military UAV. That's not what we're talking about here. You might be able to spy on your neighbor with that, but that would probably piss the neighbor off, so I wouldn't advise it.

[HereSince1628]

38. Armored cars are also expensive...and HSD is providing funding mechanisms so communities buy them

It is almost certain that states will acquire some of these for their national guard units, it's hard to imagine those in service for NG units will not have hard points for weapons attachment.

There are now average and small towns in the US with high-performance armored personnel carriers that outperform those in military service in many countries. Whether such devices are really a priority for limited tax-dollars is arguable, but communities are acquiring them. Once funding is available for drones, how many Sheriff Joe types will demand them from their cities, counties, & states?

The manufacturer of the drones will predictably want to keep making and selling these things and will surely lobby to have funding available to fed agencies, and state and local law enforcement. Concern for officer safety amidst fear-mongering continually pushes the boundaries on the availability of military weapons for use in civilian arenas.

I don't disagree with you on how they might be routinely used. However, I would say that the missions will likely expand as the number of drones and their accessories become more available and training time is required to keep the pilots skilled. The drone manufacturers will also continue to invent civilian mission capabilities to help market their product. Looking for things to do will result in new applications in new public agencies.

I really don't believe there is anything to guarantee that drones flying over the US will not be armed. The HSD has special anti-terror rules that allow for operations in most of the populated areas of the nation. Shifting the capacity for those missions down the hierarchy of government doesn't seem that difficult to imagine.

[MineralMan]

42. Yes, the City of St. Paul has one of those armored vehicles.

They bring it to the State Fair every year. So far, though, there hasn't been any event where it was needed here. There's also a good sized DHS presence here, due to the nearby MSP airport and the Mississippi River, which runs right through both Minneapolis and St. Paul. The County Sheriff here also got a $200,000 boat, equipped with all sorts of fancy hardware. It's used to patrol the River. It even has sophisticated side-looking sonar. So far, they've used it a couple of times to find bodies in the river. Mostly, a couple of deputies run it up and down the river on weekends. The DHS has an even more expensive boat. The Mississippi and Minesota Rivers go right by the MSP airport, so they're used to patrol that area.

I see the Sheriff's boat every time I go fishing on the river. They wave at me in my little 12' aluminum boat and ask how the fishing is.

[TheKentuckian]

47. So waste of a diversion of resources from actual areas of need are okay with you?

You have clearly pointed out that neither the armored vehicle nor the high tech boat have any use to justify their expense but here you are leading the pom pom brigade in support of yet another boondoggle that will take desperately needed resources from other areas.

At best, we are talking about blowing a bunch of money we don't have for limited use gadgetry and at worst we are allowing the proliferation of spy birds with substantial demonstrated killing capability.

The upside of locating a lost hiker is not a sound justification for the larger program, it is the use of a tiny feature as a distraction to reduce resistance.

[MineralMan]

49. No, that is not all right with me.

I suppose the DHS boat is needed to patrol the waterways around MSP. There are security risks present there. The sheriff's boat isn't of much use, though, except when someone needs to be found after jumping into the river from a bridge. I suppose it could be needed at some point, but it doesn't have to be cruising the river.

This OP was not about money being wasted. Money is wasted on all sorts of nonsense that should be used for more important things. That's a different issue.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. The FAA and airspace issues remain unresolved

Congress via appropriation legislation has ordered the FAA to start a pilot project to integrate UAV into the airspace at 6 facilities. There are airports competing to participate, though they tend to be outlying, not like LAX.

The real issue is see and avoid. Even UAVs with forward looking cameras are not capable of seeing other aircraft. Electronics could help somewhat, except there are large quantities of aircraft without transponders, radios, ads-b, etc.

[MineralMan]

45. Yup. In major cities, airspace issues will be a large factor.

Another reason why there won't be lots and lots of UAVs in operation. This is going to take some time to figure out, and isn't going lead to UAVs flying over every neighborhood, like some thing.

The control systems required for the non-line-of-sight operations are going to have to be sophisticated and expensive. Small, line-of-sight UAVs are a lot easier to deal with, since the technology is well established. They're also not all that useful for law-enforcement and other such activities. The RC aircraft hobby community has developed pretty sophisticated controls for line-of-sight operation.

[TheKentuckian]

44. If they didn't intend to use them then they wouldn't want them.

What they intend to use them for, I don't give a shit. They need no more toys of such capabilities and need to blow no more of our money to get them.

As far as your "won't be used for" section, the only way to be certain is not to allow their domestic use at all for military or police applications at all. That keeps the surest money funnels off limits which will greatly reduce the resources to fuel scaling down of the costs.

"Armed drones won't be flying domestically, I'm quite certain" is not proof or even an argument but rather a declaration of faith. Faith that you are hard pressed to share based on the capabilities you push as selling points, to be of use in those applications the systems need to have tremendous ability to spy or to take out the "violent armed idiot".

The police state has too many tools and too large a share of the resources as it is, support of additional resources is not justified and as such I will oppose the domestic use of the technology all around. I also oppose to keep the cost up per unit to make it prohibitive for use in the drug war and for snooping on individuals or crowds. I have no desire to reduce the costs of searches or to make them easier from a personnel perspective.
We know what the ghetto birds are for and pursuit of violent criminals is very much peripheral, the primary use is vice support and if more expensive to operate missions are going on now then cheaper, safer ones will only be ramped up.

We don't need this crap, it is a luxury in a time when we are cutting heating oil help for the elderly and closing schools. I don't approve of the resource management, if nothing else.

[stevenleser]

48. Remote control planes with cameras have existed for over 50 years. There is no change. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. You have not been keeping up with the rules or the technology

R/C airplanes have altitude limits and are normally constrained to fly only over property they have permission for. Not nearly the same as a private or police UAS.

Today many UAS systems operate BLOS (beyond line of sight). In civilian airspace that brings up all sorts of safety issues

[stevenleser]

102. Ahh, so the FAA/Airtraffic safety is what we are talking about, not privacy or government intrusion

please feel free to explain that to everyone who is claiming the sky is falling.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

103. My primary concern is safety. FAA does not have a solution and is being forced to accept them via

legislation.

Without major changes to how the airspace is used, UAS systems will be low altitude and LOS only.

[atheous]

54. WHAT???

Turn off my paranoia radar? I've misplaced the off/on switch and it's stuck on ON.

[DefenseLawyer]

56. Armed soldiers on every corner and gps ankle bracelets for everyone

would certainly cut down on all those violent armed idiots at our schools and would definitely come in handy for missing children cases. Actually, I think if we were all on house arrest and could only leave with prior written approval of the police that would really cut down on crime. As soon as those soldiers saw someone out and about without his papers he could be taken in before he had a chance to go shoot up a school (cause you know he was going to eventually. They all do.) Where do I sign up?

[Odin2005]

60. That won't stop the paranoids here from freaking out.

They are "sure" that "THEY" are out to get them!!! THEY can read their minds and know everything they do!

[atheous]

88. just for that..

I'm calling the big bad gubnit hotline so they came git you. Don't forget to wave from the back of the shiny black Cadillac Eascolade!

[gratuitous]

63. And we don't torture, and we don't lock people up indefinitely without charge or trial

Well, unless there's a really good reason that we can't tell you about. And once it happens, why didn't you complain before? Now, it's too late. It's for your own good, anyway. Be sensible, please. We'd never use them against our own citizens. At least in this country. Unless they were very, very bad. So quit worrying. Besides, the cost! I mean, the government doesn't just squander billions of dollars willy-nilly on non-productive stuff. They certainly don't do it for years at a time.

Yes, very comforting indeed.

[Autumn]

69. Wars are expensive to go into and maintain too.

That has never stopped our Government. They will always find money to throw away. However I do like the idea of them being used in disaster situations.

[Robb]

71. Futurism is a complicated field, and it's not for everyone.

I probably had one of the first 500 email addresses in the world. I also remember telling my mother no one would ever use the visual web, because pictures take too long to load.

You are predicting future use using technical limitations in a technological system that is fully-funded and wholly engaged, e,.g. one that will grow in capability with virtually no obstacles.

UAVs will be used for everything they possibly can be used for. What many fail to comprehend -- or, setting aside the paranoid, many are willfully ignoring -- is that the technology is itself no more inherently evil than the telescope, radio, or airplane. Every technology can be misused; it is a societal pressure, not a scientific one, that dictates use.

I like radios that play music. I don't like radios that tell enemy mortar teams my position. Money spent on radio development could've been better spent on famine relief efforts in India in the 40's. But it wasn't; neither will UAV tech development money be spent anywhere else.

[MineralMan]

76. Good points.

This UAV technology was developed for military use, since that development was very, very costly, and the military has the budget to do it, for better or worse. Now, that technology is being expanded into domestic, non-military use, for better or worse.

The airline industry came straight out of WWII, where multi-engined planes were developed to carry heavy bomb loads. After the war, the same technology got used for carrying passengers from one place to another. The changeover to jet-powered planes was also an offshoot of military technology, so now we can fly from JFK to LAX in five hours, with a plane leaving every 15 minutes or so.

Space tech, too, started as a military deal. Now, everything from our TV shows to our telephone conversations travel to space and back, instead of travelling over wires. And TV, itself comes from military development. Computers, GPS, all that stuff.

UAVs are a reality. They'll get used for all sorts of things. A lot of those things will be beneficial. A few won't. Same old thing that happens to all technologies.

[Zorra]

72. ACLU: Domestic Drones. "rubber bullets, tasers, and teargas".

U.S. law enforcement has been expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance purposes. This type of routine aerial surveillance in American life would profoundly change the character of public life in the United States. Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a "surveillance society" in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the authorities. Drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with (nonlethal for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones

Drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with (nonlethal for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas.

I'm always wary of absolute statements, such as the reassurances in your OP. Particularly regarding these types of issues.

One thing we can totally count on in this life is change.

Remember this?: "Don't worry, silly, the Patriot Act has a sunset provision! When the crisis passes, the Patriot Act will disappear!1!1!"

Yuh.

Here's the thing about rights, liberties, and protections from government/corporate intrusion.

Once these things are taken away, they are seldom, if ever, returned.

I will remain very concerned.

[MineralMan]

77. There's nothing wrong with being concerned.

If we elect the right people, we can put restrictions on the uses of these things. The beneficial uses will remain. Fight the use, not the device. Fight the concept of arming UAVs in domestic use. Encourage the use of UAVs for search and rescue, environmental monitoring, and all the beneficial uses it can have. The reality is that UAVs are just about to enter the domestic airspace. I do not believe there is any way, nor a good reason, to block that entry.

However, I also believe that we can stop them from being armed, and sheer impracticality and cost will prevent them from being used for routine surveillance of the civilian population.

Work on elections. That's the way to maintain control of how this stuff is used. Nothing else is going to work.

[Zorra]

79. Yeah...I've worked some in the past to elect people

that I thought would make every effort to protect and restore our civil liberties.

They failed me.

I don't want to post examples, as this would not be constructive right now.

[MineralMan]

80. I've been disappointed sometimes, too.

But I keep trying. Maybe I'm just stubborn. The thing is that I can't see any workable alternative to it. It being elections and that kind of thing.

I'm lucky to live in a place where the people who get elected are progressives. I've lived in places where that wasn't the case, but I was still out there trying to get the best possible candidate who could win elected. Sometimes, despite the place, it even worked. Sometimes, it didn't. I don't know any other way to proceed that has any chance at all.

[randome]

81. There is nothing preventing anyone in the government -state or federal-

from declaring martial law and doing what they want whenever they want. So being 'concerned' about drones that can also be used for good purposes sounds like being 'concerned' that guns and teargas might be used for nefarious purposes, as well.

Of course they can. But more often than not, we want law enforcement to have these weapons at their disposal.

[Zorra]

94. I really don't like the idea of the personal culpability

of malicious and deadly law enforcement personnel

(unfortunately I have no videos of the two incidences where I was beaten by police)

being replaced by *unfortunate machine malfunction*

C.I.A. Drones Kill Civilians in Pakistan
The civilian death toll appeared to be among the worst in the scores of strikes carried out recently in Pakistan’s tribal areas by the C.I.A., which runs the drones. Local residents and media reports said as many as 40 people had been killed in all, though the intelligence official disputed that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/asia/18pakistan.html?_r=1

and I never really have trusted the government/corporations to abide by the Constitution

New Occupy Crackdown Documents Just Obtained by the PCJF (DHS, SS, FBI, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002593059

or always use surveillance devices for lawful, ethical reasons,


because, from my POV as a student of history, knowing the horrible things that governments and private enterprises, separate or in conjunction, have done to innocent people, frankly...

..."I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson

Caught on Camera: 10 Shockingly Violent Police Assaults on Occupy Protesters
http://www.alternet.org/story/153134/caught_on_camera:_10_shockingly_violent_police_assaults_on_occupy_protesters/?page=2

[Romulox]

82. Not convincing *at all*. nt

[MineralMan]

83. OK.

Thanks.

[quinnox]

86. Yes, and cameras on every street corner won't hurt anyone either, and

a total surveillance society is great, because it will be easier to find criminals and missing or abducted people, and all upstanding citizens will have nothing to worry about, because they don't do anything wrong anyway. BULLSHIT!

Not surprised to see this OP coming from this poster. I will always oppose authoritarianism and police state-ism and people who make excuses for it.

[LeftyMom]

87. Just curious, do you have any financial ties to the drone research program in your area?

http://www.uav.aem.umn.edu/

It seems a bit odd to write ad copy for free.

[MineralMan]

89. No, none whatsoever.

I can barely pay my bills these days, and I have no financial ties to anything. I was writing information and opinion, not ad copy.

I wasn't even aware that the U of M was involved in UAV research. I don't pay much attention to the University.

It seems a bit odd that you assume that I would have such ties.

If you want to see what I do for a living, click the link below about my web content business. I'm also receiving Social Security payments, since I'm an old geezer.

[LeftyMom]

90. It's really not odd to think something that reads like an advertisement is compensated.

I'm surprised you didn't say drones can be used to get stuck kittens out of trees, and to deliver ice cream on sunny days.

[MineralMan]

92. It is odd to think that, really, with no evidence.

I have spent my entire working life as a professional writer. I've written for some of the top magazines in the areas I covered. These days, I'm writing web sites for small businesses. You can see samples of my work at the link I mentioned before. Much of the writing I do is marketing writing, by necessity, since small business websites are marketing.

I write to provide information, and know how to do that, since I'm a professional at it. You've mistaken a professional skill for something else. Here on DU, I write about political topics and other things. I write for free here, but I don't give up the skills I've developed as a writer. I didn't say that drones could rescue kittens or deliver ice cream, because those are not among the things they can do. All of the things I mentioned, however, are things they can do.

I write about many subjects on DU. None of those are areas where I have any financial connection. I write about many subjects as a professional writer. None of them have anything to do with politics. Your implication that I am somehow tied financially to this subject is incorrect, and I said so. I also pointed out how you could find out what it is that I do for a living. It's all so simple.

While I appreciate your interest in me and what I do, I have to say that you've drawn an incorrect conclusion, based on no information whatsoever. I am compensated just fine for my professional writing work, although I used to make a lot more by doing it. The economy has changed, and so has the pay. Still, I enjoy my work. I also enjoy the writing I do on DU. The two things are in no way connected.

I will not ask you what you do to earn your living. That would be rude.

[stevenleser]

104. Are you a paid consultant for the anti-drone groups?

This kind of accusation is ridiculous.

[LeftyMom]

110. No. I don't write advertising at all.

The OP does, so it's a reasonable question to ask if he's selling something when he starts in with the usual advertising crap. He identified a primal fear- the loss of a child, and offered a product as a solution. Aside from being a stupid argument, it sure looks like an ad. If he wrote something that shady and manipulative for free I hope he's properly ashamed.

[stevenleser]

111. It's funny because what you are writing sounds like a takedown by a paid operative.

I hope if you are writing something so shady and manipulative for free that you are properly ashamed.

I hope you also realize that 95% of what is written on DU is generally very strongly pro or anti something and could be spun as 'professionally compensated work" and that accusations of this kind against anonymous people on the internet are not only silly, but impossible to prove and therefore a serious waste of time for all concerned.

[Marr]

91. LOL.

It's amazing how easily apologists can shift from "they'd never do that" to "it's great that they're doing that".

[bvar22]

96. Everybody RELAX!

The Government would NEVER use these for nefarious purposes.
NEVER! Trust me.
When has our government ever exceeded its authority?
They would never eavesdrop on our private telephone conversations or E-Mails without first getting a warrant from a Judge,
and IF they did,
they would never grant themselves immunity after the fact.
Never!

Nobody in our government EVER sees protesters, activists, or vocal critics as "Terrorists", "Subversives", or Disloyal Americans!.
The government would NEVER keep secret TIA files on its citizens.
We are the "Land of the FREE!"


Nothing to worry about.
The Militarization of our Police Forces,
the national coordination and command of the local Police,
the targeting of peaceful, legal protesters,
and the plethora of legislation usurping Constitutional Guaranteed Liberties over the last 12 years NEVER happened.
Its ALL just some Henny-Penny hand wringing.

Big Brother LOVES you, and only wants what is best for you.
If you have nothing to hide,
you have nothing to worry about.

Nothing to be concerned about here.
Go shopping, or watch some TV.
The Economy is improving,
and choco rations will soon be increased!
Double Plus Good!

Amendment IV

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, and the persons or things to be seized.

United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ____ (2012)

the Supreme Court ruled that a search for Fourth Amendment purposes also occurs when law enforcement trespasses on a person's property for information gathering purposes, even if that person had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Odin2005]

97. If the government wants to spy on people they will already be doing it.

It's not that hard.

What is hard is analyzing the data, which is why they are not going to be spying on the ordinary bum. Does that mean I support on them spying on protestors and activists? absolutely not, but they are already doing that, the technology side is pretty irrelevant.

[bvar22]

98. ...So, Nothing to worry about?

Its already a done deal?
No need to get everybody all upset and everything.
They might start demanding accountability from our government or something stupid like that.

Nothing to see here.
Everybody just go along peacefully.

[morningfog]

105. Your numbers 1 and 2 are wrong.

[Canuckistanian]

106. Ummm....

Since WHEN exactly has America been stingy about funds where spying is concerned?

COINTEL seemed to be adequately funded, didn't it? And all of it's offspring, which continue to this day.

[Union Scribe]

109. Oh, thank God. Guys, no worries,

MM checked it out, it's okay. They're just being used to find missing kids. Why do you hippies hate missing kids?

[Unaccountable]

113. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)